ARRIFLEX D-21 vs RED

[martin.kryjom]

hi
enybody knows may be the price for Arriflex D-21 camera?
Arri claim that they have full 35mm sensor as red but in the 4:3 proportions so we can use anamorfic lenses,
Lso they claim to do uncompressed RAW data.
I'm wondering how much it cost

[Richard Lackey]

You can shoot Red with anamorphic lenses. It' been done and looks pretty good.

Check out www.red235.com, there is a link there to download a Nescafe commercial shot with Lomo's and the Red One. A set of Lomo anamorphics is selling for $15,250, a 35mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm.

[conrad gaunt]

You can shoot Red with anamorphic lenses. It' been done and looks pretty good.

Check out www.red235.com, there is a link there to download a Nescafe commercial shot with Lomo's and the Red One. A set of Lomo anamorphics is selling for $15,250, a 35mm, 50mm, 75mm and 100mm.

Interesting, has anyone dealt with Ken Rich before? famous or infamous?

[Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock]

I´m going to direct a D21 shoot this week. Everybody´s pretty excited.

DP is Egon Werdin, 1st AC Emanuel Schwermer.

Jochen

[Sanjin Jukic]

"Since the D-21 is the only digital high-end camera with a 4x3 aspect ratio sensor, it can make full use of anamorphic lenses."

A pure HOT AIR from Arri.

Red shot 3K ANA format with a full use of anamorphic lenses even before D-21 was announced.

With RED you can custom your aspect ratio starting from 2:1, 16:9 or 4:3.

Soderbergh's "Che" will show in two weeks at Cannes Festival how he did it with a full anamorphic lenses on RED.

That's a COOL AIR as a true fact from RED.

[Stephen Webb]

Er yeah, the D20 could also shoot full anamorphic so I think they beat Red to it Sanjin :matrix:

The point Arri are making is that you can shoot anamorphic using the full benefit of the 4:3 sensor - a significant feature IMHO. Be nice if Epic could do the same.

[chuck colburn]

hi
enybody knows may be the price for Arriflex D-21 camera?
Arri claim that they have full 35mm sensor as red but in the 4:3 proportions so we can use anamorfic lenses,
Lso they claim to do uncompressed RAW data.
I'm wondering how much it cost

By the title of your post I thought you were doing a shoot out. lol

[Jeff Coatney]

I wonder if the pixel gap on the D-21 causes problems with anamorphic when its unsqueezed. Maybe Graeme would know.

[Daniel Reichenbach]

hi
enybody knows may be the price for Arriflex D-21 camera?
Arri claim that they have full 35mm sensor as red but in the 4:3 proportions so we can use anamorfic lenses,
Lso they claim to do uncompressed RAW data.
I'm wondering how much it cost

Theoretically 120'000$, they told me, but D-21 is not for selling, just for renting, except of some countries like russia, where ARRI have no renting facilities, I was informed at NAB :whistling:

[Matthew Verkler]

Interesting, has anyone dealt with Ken Rich before? famous or infamous?

I've dealt with Ken Rich a number of times since 1999, both for buying gear and for selling. I've been happy each time, no problems at all.

Matthew Verkler

[Richard Lackey]

Yep, I want to buy a set of those Lomos, waiting for a email back from him. Once I've got my camera I'd be happy to post some of the results.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Theoretically 120'000$, they told me, but D-21 is not for selling, just for renting, except of some countries like russia, where ARRI have no renting facilities, I was informed at NAB :whistling:

Only a brand new Russian Tsar(s) can buy Arri D-21 :) .

RED Revolution started somehow in 2007 almost 90 years after the Russian Revolution 1917.

[G.W.Film]

from arri rep
There will be several different financial models for customers to obtain the D21. Outright purchase; Leasing with Service & Upgrade package; B to B sub-renting.

All pricing and terms are currently being defined and will be published in the near future,

Regards,

VB

[Steve Sanacore]

I was under the impression that the problem with the Arri D's was in the data flow having no raw compression at all.

[Michael Thornton]

Bless those who compare apple and orange.
I hope ignorance is really bliss?

For me the D21 is paper and the RED is green paper money that I can spend.
Cold hard cash baby!

How can you compare a product that you can buy to something that you can only rent with no real market values?
REDONE = $17,500 USD

Get your head check, your brain may be bigger than mine.
Due to swellings.

LOL

Tek

P. S. I can't spell, but I won't compare apple vs orange.

[Manuel Wenger]

Well, the right tool for the right project, some projects will go vor RED some will go D21, and currently there is market for both camera systems.
If you want S35 depht of field with 60fps NOW on digitial, you need to go ARRI D21.

I am a RED camera owner in a couple of weeks myself, but still, i make a camera choice dependent on a project, budget and artistic choice, no need to battle Camera A against Camera B.

Manuel

[Häakon]

The point Arri are making is that you can shoot anamorphic using the full benefit of the 4:3 sensor - a significant feature IMHO. Be nice if Epic could do the same.
With total respect, I never understand this idea when it comes up. RED's sensor may be 16:9 in shape, but it's a 4K sensor! Even if you chop off the sides to shoot in anamorphic mode, you're still left with more resolution than the other guys that have a 4:3 sensor. Maybe it's just a psychological issue, but just because you're not always using the full sensor area doesn't mean there's a problem with the quality of the images. The majority of RED users are still running the camera in 2:1 mode, which cuts off resolution from the total sensor area... and I don't see anything wrong with those images either. :-)

[Stephen Webb]

Yes but the point is if Epic has a 4:3 sensor that will be more!

Don't you understand, it goes up to 11???

[Levan Bakhia]

Theoretically 120'000$, they told me, but D-21 is not for selling, just for renting, except of some countries like russia, where ARRI have no renting facilities, I was informed at NAB :whistling:


I think it was 120000 Euros not $, and yes they are not for selling, unless it is country where there is no ARRI rental. Like a country I am from :*) but I do not think D21 is 6 times better than RED. Is it?

[Gunleik Groven]

It must be @ that price...

[Roberto B]

I think it was 120000 Euros not $, and yes they are not for selling, unless it is country where there is no ARRI rental. Like a country I am from :*) but I do not think D21 is 6 times better than RED. Is it?joke of the week.. :poster_oops: year.. :whistling: ehehehehe

[Mark Toia]

Interesting, has anyone dealt with Ken Rich before? famous or infamous?


Very painful experinece.... well for me anyway.
Nice enough bloke, but man what a dragged out experience.
Best way to deal with him is, cash in hand, go to his office. do the deal there and then and leave.

because he does have a good range of used equipment.

Other person you should be calling if it's LENSES your after.
This guy is good!.

Stuart Rabin
FOCUS OPTICS
TEL.818.757.1007
FAX.818.757.1029
stuart@focusoptics.com

[Mark Toia]

Well, the right tool for the right project, some projects will go vor RED some will go D21, and currently there is market for both camera systems.
If you want S35 depht of field with 60fps NOW on digitial, you need to go ARRI D21.

I am a RED camera owner in a couple of weeks myself, but still, i make a camera choice dependent on a project, budget and artistic choice, no need to battle Camera A against Camera B.

Manuel

Your thoughts will change about 5 minuets after you shoot your first test.
Trust me.

[laguun]

Your thoughts will change about 5 minuets after you shoot your first test.
Trust me.

we have been testing the Arri D20 some years ago.
we then decided to go with the more expensive Sony HDW-750P instead.

reasons to favor sony were latitude, sensitivity, ergonomics and reliability.
price was in favor of arri.

[Bret Weeks]

Interesting, has anyone dealt with Ken Rich before? famous or infamous?

famous.. at least in my circle. Been around a long time- straight shooter.

bw

[Häakon]

Yes but the point is if Epic has a 4:3 sensor that will be more!

Don't you understand, it goes up to 11???
I know you're only being semi-serious with the "it goes to 11" comment, but my original post was a reply to your post about the D-21, not the Epic. If Epic is a 4:3 sensor, at 5K, then it would definitely be an advantage for those who like to shoot anamorphic pictures (although it would be worse for those who shoot non-anamorphic, which I imagine is a much larger group of people). However, the D-21's 4:3 sensor, at a lower resolution than RED ONE's, does not seem to me to be a "significant feature," since even if you crop the RED's sensor to a 4:3 area it still maintains more detail. Right? :-)

[Dane Brehm]

The Reason you get a D-21 has nothing to do with the sensor. It's all about a real mechanical shutter with a real crystal clear optical viewfinder.

The Arriflex exports 2k 16bit Uncompressed Bayer to either a dual-link Codex system or S.two. Your dealing with much higher bit rates then the RED camera.

[Alexis Vanier]

I agree this is comparing apples to oranges. I'm working the pre-pre for a feature. We're still looking for financing and all kinds of figures are thrown at us so every option is looked at.

I have to say the D-20/D-21 is very interesting... but I'm worried about the sensitivity. I've read it has been rated as low as 50 ISO. If I were to shoot the RED, I'd definitely shoot my tungsten stuff optically corrected or at least half corrected, which would bring the sensitivity down... but ISO 50 is... yew... (A lot of night stuff for the said project turns me off the 20/21)

If anyone has first hand experience with the D-20/D-21, I'd be very interested in hearing about it. Especially if someone could comment on the sensitivity difference between the 20 and 21. Did they change the sensor? The details are pretty fuzzy there.

EDIT : I just remembered. I saw the D20 demoed at a local rental facility but they didn't run it. How loud is it in a real life situation while recording?

[Stephen Webb]

However, the D-21's 4:3 sensor, at a lower resolution than RED ONE's, does not seem to me to be a "significant feature," since even if you crop the RED's sensor to a 4:3 area it still maintains more detail. Right? :-)

But with reduced FOV/DOF.

Where Arri have got it right is to have a 4:3 sensor to allow for anamorphic shooting. With the Red One, if you shoot Anamorphic you take a resolution hit over shooting flat which is annoying.

Now admittedly the need for anamorphic formats may not be top priority, and the cost of R&D to include a 4:3 sensor in the Epic may not be cost effective, but that doesn't mean it's not a nice feature to have and one which the Arri D-21 can genuinely claim as a unique and positive feature.

[Brook Willard]

What's this doing in Accessories?

[Richard Lackey]

But with reduced FOV/DOF.

Where Arri have got it right is to have a 4:3 sensor to allow for anamorphic shooting. With the Red One, if you shoot Anamorphic you take a resolution hit over shooting flat which is annoying.

Now admittedly the need for anamorphic formats may not be top priority, and the cost of R&D to include a 4:3 sensor in the Epic may not be cost effective, but that doesn't mean it's not a nice feature to have and one which the Arri D-21 can genuinely claim as a unique and positive feature.

What I don't understand, is that you are comparing a 4K resolution sensor, which even if you cropped at the sides to get 4:3, which is still well over 2K of horizontal resolution with a sensor that will only give you 2K resolution max.

Doesn't it make sense to you that the Red One's 4K 16:9 sensor, with anamorphic lenses, cropped to 4:3 still yields a greater resolution than is possible with the Arri?

Does this make sense to anyone else, am I wrong?

4:3 is the same as 12:9, just to make it easier to do the calculations. So horizontally we are comparing 16 to 12, 4K divided into 16 is 256, now we multiply that by 12 to get 3072!

So, my friend, shooting anamorphic with Red, cropping the sensor down to 4:3 yields a resolution of 3072 x 2304.

The most you are going to get out of a 4:3 2K sensor is 2K, so that would be 2048 x 1556.

Tell me, which one is giving you the greater resolution?

[Stephen Webb]

But like I said, you don't get the full s35 format by shooting anamorphic on Red, whereas you do when shooting on the D-21.

What I don't understand is this compulsive need some people seem to have to knock every other product on the market and not acknowledge that actually sometimes they do have some unique features that are a credit to them.

Is it really that hard???

[Gunleik Groven]

Stephen, you're right to an exctent, especially if the FOV is cropped top/bottom on the RED. If it's not (the full FOV is projected to a cropped 4k sensor) and the rez in that crop is sufficiantly higher for downsampling to 2k, I can uderstand why people point that out.

Me?
I dunno...

[Häakon]

Right, that's exactly what I was saying. He countered that you take a resolution hit to shoot anamorphically with RED compared to shooting flat, which the Arri doesn't. But of course on that camera, you take a resolution hit shooting flat, which I find even more annoying. The point is, however, that RED has more resolution in it's 4:3 mode than Arri does natively. It's irrelevant what the native sensor size is, as long as the lenses cover it fully. It's the age old question; which is bigger, a square or a rectangle? Obviously it depends on the dimensions of both. I don't see how you're losing DOF if you're only cropping horizontally, since the lenses cover the entire active area. You only lose it when the lens covers more area than the sensor size, like what happens when you shoot in 3K or 2K modes on the RED.

Those who have stated that the real reason to be excited about the D21 is the shutter and viewfinder are correct, but if the tradeoff is having to shoot uncompressed, the data will probably be unmanagable in all but the most specialized projects. I think RED's real ace in the pocket is REDCODE, which makes working with 4K actually doable.

[Sanjin Jukic]

But like I said, you don't get the full s35 format by shooting anamorphic on Red, whereas you do when shooting on the D-21.

What I don't understand is this compulsive need some people seem to have to knock every other product on the market and not acknowledge that actually sometimes they do have some unique features that are a credit to them.

Is it really that hard???

So in about two weeks Soderbergh is going to show a fake anamorphic s35mm in the movie "Che" shot on RED to the world.

All it sounds more like a "big joke" of Panavision's Jonn Grant that claims too much GREEN in CMOS :) .

D-21 and Genesis are the fighters for survival.

Also I just showed HERE (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12630&page=5) how you could do easy and fast 4K workflow with R3D on a laptop MacBook Pro 17".

Can you do it the same with D-21 RAW or Genesis?

[Stephen Webb]

I don't see how you're losing DOF if you're only cropping horizontally, since the lenses cover the entire active area.

You're not only cropping horizontally.

Because the sensor is 16:9 rather than 4:3 you're already cropped vertically. You then have to crop horizontally as well to get a 4:3 area, so in the end you're losing the comparative FOV/DOF you'd normally have with anamorphic because you're essentially taking a crop from the centre of a s35 image.

If it doesn't matter, then what's the benefit having a s35 sized sensor over having a 2/3" sized one?

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Anamorphic lenses squeeze the 2:39:1 image into a 4:3 area but since Red is a 16:9 sensor the lens over shoots the sensor at the top of the bottom.
If you where to un squeeze the image as is you would get an image that is far too wide and you've lost half your vertical field of view.
In order to correct this you crop the sides of the 16:9 image back to a 4:3 one and in the process lose a bunch of your horizontal FOV as well.
You still get the 2k image that an ARRI would give you but at a cost of the Benefits of the Anamorphic FOV.
The ARRI D 21 on the other hand has the full 4:3 35mm sensor so it enjoys the full benefit of the anamorphic lens.

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Also I just showed HERE (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12630&page=5) how you could do easy and fast 4K workflow with R3D on a laptop MacBook Pro 17".


you call that 18 step program fast and easy? with film I have 5 steps

- Shoot
- Work print
- Edit
- Neg Cut
- Print

OK 6 steps the sound guys have to do their thing.

[Stephen Webb]

And another thing...

If you shoot Anamorphic on the Red you're actually taking a 3072x2304 image (when cropped). The D-21 is 2880x2160 - hardly a massive difference in resolution. To be able to shoot anamorphic at full 35mm sensor size is a significant benefit of the D21 (if anamorphic happens to be your thing).

I'm not arguing that the Red One isn't better in other areas btw, just pointing out that the D21 has some useful features that the Red One doesn't (whilst hinting strongly that Red might like to look at adopting it for the Epic if possible).

Have to agree with CraigWB, Sanjin your "easy and fast" 4K workflow could do with some work!

[Richard Lackey]

And another thing...

If you shoot Anamorphic on the Red you're actually taking a 3072x2304 image (when cropped). The D-21 is 2880x2160 - hardly a massive difference in resolution. To be able to shoot anamorphic at full 35mm sensor size is a significant benefit of the D21 (if anamorphic happens to be your thing).

I'm not arguing that the Red One isn't better in other areas btw, just pointing out that the D21 has some useful features that the Red One doesn't (whilst hinting strongly that Red might like to look at adopting it for the Epic if possible).

Have to agree with CraigWB, Sanjin your "easy and fast" 4K workflow could do with some work!

Actually, you have a point that I only just caught onto with the help of CraigWB. You are actually right, the Red's sensor is physically not large enough in the vertical. So, it's actually not just a case of cropping it to 4:3 because by the fact that it is only 13.7mm on the vertical you are already chopping off the top and bottomof your full frame anamorphic image.

Hmm, so, shooting anamorphic on the Red is not perfect, and I guess I might consider the Arri over the Red one if shooting anamorphic and I had the budget, but, and this is a big but, how does it look in the end? I really liked the look of that Nescafe commercial shot with Red and the Lomo's, I would argue that in the end, the audience may not know any better.

Not to bring up another old topic that has been argued to death but the optical viewfinder and mechanical shutter are still the real selling points for me of the Arri. I would probably pay another $10,000 over the projected cost of Epic to have a mechanical shutter and optical viewfinder, plus a 5K 4:3 aspect sensor that Stephen is suggesting.

I see the uncompressed output of the Arri also as a strength, not a weakness. For all of the extra storage and data bandwidth needed in post, working with a uncompressed output should at least be an option. When I ordered my Red, I wanted the optical port, but by that time it had already been tossed out. Don't get me wrong, Redcode is the cornerstone, or one of the cornerstones why 4K will be accessible to more people than could have ever been imagined a couple years ago, but in some cases, if I had a uncompressed RAW output option, I would take it.

In the end it's all Jims decision, and I have read from others that somewhere along the line, Red said they wouldn't even consider a optical viewfinder or mechanical shutter. So I won't even argue for those anymore, there are more important things.

Still a 4:3 full sized sensor (what would it be about 17.5mm vertical instead of 13.7mm?) isn't a bad idea.

[Sanjin Jukic]

you call that 18 step program fast and easy? with film I have 5 steps

- Shoot
- Work print
- Edit
- Neg Cut
- Print

OK 6 steps the sound guys have to do their thing.





Have to agree with CraigWB, Sanjin your "easy and fast" 4K workflow could do with some work!

But guys in between CraigWB's 6 film steps there are more steps

to get thing done and really you should not play the amateurs here.

I gave it to you exactly 18 steps and you are done with 4K DPX

on your drive(s) ready for a film recorder/scanner

(and don't forget all is done on MacBook Pro laptop).

Also I do not count the (missing) steps from the first CraigWB's

step "Shoot" to the second "Work print",

please don't make me laughing :) .

Till the end "Print" we could finished even about close to 100 steps

if somebody could count properly.

Again :)

and again :)

and again :) .

[Gunleik Groven]

I think his points are more to say: This is what I do.
In an all do-it-yourself workflow, you'd be screwed in analogue.
you (and others) have showed that it CAN be done with RED.

[Lewis-M Soucy]

Anamorphic lenses squeeze the 2:39:1 image into a 4:3 area but since Red is a 16:9 sensor the lens over shoots the sensor at the top of the bottom.
If you where to un squeeze the image as is you would get an image that is far too wide and you've lost half your vertical field of view.
In order to correct this you crop the sides of the 16:9 image back to a 4:3 one and in the process lose a bunch of your horizontal FOV as well.
You still get the 2k image that an ARRI would give you but at a cost of the Benefits of the Anamorphic FOV.
The ARRI D 21 on the other hand has the full 4:3 35mm sensor so it enjoys the full benefit of the anamorphic lens.

Thanks. Someone said it. Anamorphic is an optical distortion created by the lens. The lens squeezes the image, and when screened, the projector has an "inverted" anamorphic lens that "desqueezes" the image. That's the process in 35 film anyway. Note that with resolution calculation, if you shoot anamorphic, you capture "squeezed" image BUT when you "desqueeze" it, you don't create more lines, you just spread the same lines wider, thus less definition... Anamorphic doesn't create lines, it just creates space, taking benefit of a squeezing a large image in a narrow area by the trick of a lens distortion... Anyway, those of you who made films will understand... I don't think I'm clear...:sarcasm:

[Tom Lowe]

It really seems odd to me that people are shooting anamorphic on digital sensors. It's basically matching up analog technology (lens) to digital technology (sensor). Seems like a strange pairing.

Has anyone ever done any actual tests on this to see if there is a genuine benefit?

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

I'm sure Arri has shot some stuff but it's more to do with the look that anamorphic lenses create.
I've herd that it provides a FOV similar to 65mm but don't quote me on that line with out confirming it first.

[Sanjin Jukic]

It really seems odd to me that people are shooting anamorphic on digital sensors. It's basically matching up analog technology (lens) to digital technology (sensor). Seems like a strange pairing.

Has anyone ever done any actual tests on this to see if there is a genuine benefit?

Tom,

As I heard it was projected on RED Boot at NAB (Soderbergh's vision of Che, etc...).

I wish that I was there.

[Brook Willard]

To those that needed a clearer explanation, here it is:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/uploaded/5_1209486542.jpg

So yes, it does matter. You may have higher resolution on the RED in 4:3 mode, but you lose significant FOV [and, therefore, perceived DOF] when compared with a true 4:3 sensor. If I did this with 4K 2:1 mode, the difference would be even more dramatic.

It's not a true 50% cut as some have suggested, but it's close [roughly 40%]. So your 100mm anamorphic prime on a RED will have the approximate FOV of a 169mm lens on a true 4-perf sensor [Correct me if I'm wrong, I probably am. These conversions always bother me].

The decision to use anamorphic lenses is rarely a technical one these days. With the tight grain structure of modern film stocks, the actual resolution difference between S35mm 1.85 and four-perf anamorphic is offset by the significant edge softness of the anamorphic glass - yes, even the Primos.

Nobody can argue with the look of anamorphic lenses though. It's an awesome aesthetic that fits certain projects perfectly. Is it better? Well it used to be [from a resolution standpoint]. These days? It's only better if your aesthetic requires it.

Hope this helps.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Hawk is building Anamorphic lenses for a 16x9 sensor. (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=162949&postcount=2)

[Brook Willard]

Dalsa already has some out. Nice lenses, but they still won't match the FOV and, in turn, DOF characteristics of a true 4-perf sensor.

Ultimately it's not a huge deal... but it's still something to think about.

I've been on many a shoot where the DP has insisted on shooting 4:3 on the RED. The more technically-minded DPs expect and understand the changed FOV from what they're used to, but many are initially baffled when their 50mm lens looks more like an 85mm. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "didn't you say it had a super 35mm sensor?"

[Sanjin Jukic]

Soon we'll have Sodebergh's Che pictures and the we can have a look.

D-21 claims this:

"The ARRIFLEX D-21 is the only digital high-end camera that can
make full use of anamorphic lenses for the CinemaScope format."

http://www.arri.com/prod/cam/d_21/prod_img/anamorphic.jpg
The image left, as recorded by the D-21 with an anamorphic lens.
The image right, a simple 2:1 stretch in post results in a CinemaScope format image.

[Brook Willard]

...yep. That's what this entire thread is about. :wink: :)

[Sanjin Jukic]

I thought that is about legendary Citroën D-21 :)

http://www.citroen.mb.ca/june00/59german/d10.jpg

More>>> (http://www.citroen.mb.ca/june00/59german/index.html)

[Stephen Webb]

Thanks Brook, for so clearly explaining what I've been blathering on about :shifty:

[Häakon]

Sorry, Stephen, for misunderstanding your point. I wasn't aware that the D-21's sensor was larger, vertically, than the REDs - or that the area covered by anamorphic lenses is also larger (I don't prefer the look, so I'm admittedly ignorant in this area), and thus what you were trying to convey makes sense. The point I was trying to make, though, was that it's not the fact that Arri's sensor is 4:3 in shape which makes it more desirable for some, but rather just that the size of the chip is larger itself. If RED's sensor was as tall as the Arri - but still 16:9 in shape (wider) - it would be an even better choice still. If you put an anamorphic lens on such a sensor, you'd get exactly the same thing you're getting out of the Arri now - but you'd get even MORE resolution from it shooting "flat" (assuming you had a lens which could cover that total area). What Brook stated - that you lose FOV shooting on a 16:9 chip when compared to a "true" 4:3 sensor - is misleading, and what I think causes the confusion. If you had a sensor with the dimensions I just described, you wouldn't lose FOV at all shooting 16:9. That's what I was getting at; no ratio is any more "superior" than another - it is merely the dimensions which are important and what total area your glass can cover.

What I predict for the future is that sensor sizes themselves will increase as the number of pixels you can cram into a fixed area is going to eventually reach a limit and provide compromises in image quality. This might require a total reworking of lens design to create new standards, but then again it's about time. All the current technology is focused on "matching" 35mm film output - eventually we're going to want to go beyond that. I do agree with Brook, however, that one who shoots anamorphically in 2008 does so for aesthetic reasons and not for the resolution gain. Most projects shot with the RED aren't going to finish in 4K as it is, letalone 4K anamorphic.

[Häakon]

I've been on many a shoot where the DP has insisted on shooting 4:3 on the RED. The more technically-minded DPs expect and understand the changed FOV from what they're used to, but many are initially baffled when their 50mm lens looks more like an 85mm. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "didn't you say it had a super 35mm sensor?"
You run into the exact same problem shooting in 2K or 3K, however, which is the only way to shoot overcranked with the camera (16:9 or not).

[Illya Friedman]

Dalsa already has some out. Nice lenses, but they still won't match the FOV and, in turn, DOF characteristics of a true 4-perf sensor.

The nicest I've ever seen. Although the claim of a difference in FOV is untrue.

Spherical lenses are not the same as anamorphic lenses.

I just checked with the shop, DALSA Anamorphic images have what is essentially IDENTICAL FOV to traditional P-vision anamorphic images. The math puts it at less than a .5 mm difference. I have seen a wider variation in FOV between two "identical lenses" from an (unnamed) manufacturer. For all intents and purposes, that difference in FOV is insignificant.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

[Stephen Webb]

I imagine (having not seen) that the issue with the Dalsa Anamorphics are that they are less severe than a "normal" anamorphic lens, so the aesthetic is more subtle. Of course this isn't automatically a bad thing - just a other choice.

Haakon, the whole point is that because the D21 has a 4:3 sensor you can put anamorphic lenses on it and it'll behave the way you'd expect. With the Red One you lose the comparative DOF/FOV because you're essentially taking a centre crop. Hence the suggestion that this is something EPIC could rectify by employing a 4:3 sensor. Of course that then depends on whether Jim and Co. think it worthwhile.

[Häakon]

Haakon, the whole point is that because the D21 has a 4:3 sensor you can put anamorphic lenses on it and it'll behave the way you'd expect. With the Red One you lose the comparative DOF/FOV because you're essentially taking a centre crop. Hence the suggestion that this is something EPIC could rectify by employing a 4:3 sensor. Of course that then depends on whether Jim and Co. think it worthwhile.
We're on the same page, no worries. I think any confusion has just been due to semantics. The way I see it, it doesn't matter that sensor is 4:3 in shape; what really matters is that the sensor is the same *height* as the area covered by an anamorphic lens. As I mentioned, if a sensor was 16:9 in shape but the same height of the sensor found in the D-21, we'd retain more resolution shooting flat but get different aesthetics shooting with anamorphic lenses (at the same resolution of the Arri chip).

[Stephen Webb]

The importance (as far as anamorphic is concerned) is that the sensor is of such a proportion that when you "un-squeeze" the image you end up with a correct 2.4:1 ratio without having to crop anything. That means either having a 4:3ish sensor (like the D-21) or having a lens that will squeeze the image correctly into a 16:9 sensor.

[Häakon]

Hi Stephen,

The sensor could be an octagon for all it matters... as long as it can be cropped to cover the entire area covered by your lenses, the proportion/aspect ratio does not matter.

[Brook Willard]

The nicest I've ever seen. Although the claim of a difference in FOV is untrue.

Spherical lenses are not the same as anamorphic lenses.

I just checked with the shop, DALSA Anamorphic images have what is essentially IDENTICAL FOV to traditional P-vision anamorphic images. The math puts it at less than a .5 mm difference. I have seen a wider variation in FOV between two "identical lenses" from an (unnamed) manufacturer. For all intents and purposes, that difference in FOV is insignificant.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

I stand corrected, it must've been conveyed inaccurately to me.

[Stephen Webb]

The sensor could be an octagon for all it matters... as long as it can be cropped to cover the entire area covered by your lenses, the proportion/aspect ratio does not matter.

Except that to get the DOF/FOV you expect from an anamorphic lens, you need a sensor that is the size and shape of 4-perf 35mm (or thereabouts). Or the crop you take needs to be that size (so if you want an octagon sensor that's fine, so long as it's big enough for you to take the correct size of 4:3 area from the centre).

[Sanjin Jukic]

The nicest I've ever seen. Although the claim of a difference in FOV is untrue.

Spherical lenses are not the same as anamorphic lenses.

I just checked with the shop, DALSA Anamorphic images have what is essentially IDENTICAL FOV to traditional P-vision anamorphic images. The math puts it at less than a .5 mm difference. I have seen a wider variation in FOV between two "identical lenses" from an (unnamed) manufacturer. For all intents and purposes, that difference in FOV is insignificant.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

Illya,

would you be so kind to specified a glass "origin" of these brand new DALSA lenses?

(Leica-R, Nikon-F, Canon-FD, Zeiss-Contax, etc...???)


"DALSA Prime Lenses

DALSA 4K Primes

DALSA 4K 19mm T2.8
DALSA 4K 24mm T2.8
DALSA 4K 28mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 35mm T2.8
DALSA 4K 50mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 80mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 180mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 200mm T1.4 Telephoto
DALSA 4K 300mm T1.4 Telephoto

DALSA Zooms

DALSA 4K 18-75mm T2.0 Zoom
DALSA 4K 75-150mm T2.0 Zoom

DALSA Anamorphic Lenses

DALSA 4K Anamorphic Spherical

DALSA 4K 18mm T2.8
DALSA 4K 24mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 28mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 35mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 40mm T2.0
DALSA 4K 50mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 80mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 100mm T1.4
DALSA 4K 135mm T2.0
DALSA 4K 180mm T2.0

DALSA zooms

DALSA 4K 35-80mm T2.8 Zoom
DALSA 4K 70-210mm T2.8 Zoom
DALSA 4K 17-35mm T2.0 Lightweight Zoom
DALSA 4K 27-70mm T2.0 Lightweight Zoom
DALSA 4K 70-210mm T2.0 Lightweight Zoom

MORE>>> (http://www.dalsa.com/dc/pdf/2008_Final_Draft_3_27_08.pdf)

[Häakon]

Except that to get the DOF/FOV you expect from an anamorphic lens, you need a sensor that is the size and shape of 4-perf 35mm (or thereabouts). Or the crop you take needs to be that size (so if you want an octagon sensor that's fine, so long as it's big enough for you to take the correct size of 4:3 area from the centre).
Right, that's exactly what I said... "as long as it can be cropped to cover the entire area covered by your lenses, the proportion/aspect ratio does not matter." What started the confusion for me was that I wasn't aware that RED's sensor was smaller vertically than Arri's.

I think we're saying the same things now... I just wanted to make it clear that the aspect ratio of a sensor is really irrelevant as long as your lenses don't cover a bigger area than the sensor itself. :-)

[Stephen Webb]

Right, that's it - we have a consensus.

Now someone lock this thread before someone argues!

[Illya Friedman]

would you be so kind to specified a glass "origin" of these brand new DALSA lenses?


I actually only know the source of some glass used in manufacturing DALSA lenses. While glass is important, it's only part of the equation. I'd say that the artistry of how elements work together, and the human factor is equally important when building ultra-high performance optics! Having good building blocks is not enough.

DALSA also owns/rents many lenses from Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, Angeneiux etc. These lenses are outstanding. To avoid confusion, when I say "DALSA lenses" I'm only referring to DALSA created/branded lenes. DALSA has so many sets of those other lenses because DPs want a variety of options and my job is often to provide those options.

The architects of all DALSA lenses are the team at A&S. Eric and Dan do fantastic work, are highly respected for their craft and integrity, and have been for a good long time. The work these guy do is so precise and complicated I find it amazing. A perfect example of one of Dan's little projects can be found in the January American Cinematographer piece on "There Will Be Blood."

I feel extremely fortunate that we have these artists getting to "play"... that is experimenting, developing and perfecting wonderful new optical technology to mate perfectly with our camera system. To my knowledge the DALSA 4K lenses are truly the world's first digital cinema optics (spherical and anamorphic) designed and built specifically for 4K. There will be some new fun lenses on display at Cine Gear.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

[Sanjin Jukic]

I actually only know the source of some glass used in manufacturing DALSA lenses. While glass is important, it's only part of the equation. I'd say that the artistry of how elements work together, and the human factor is equally important when building ultra-high performance optics! Having good building blocks is not enough.

DALSA also owns/rents many lenses from Arri, Zeiss, Cooke, Angeneiux etc. These lenses are outstanding. To avoid confusion, when I say "DALSA lenses" I'm only referring to DALSA created/branded lenes. DALSA has so many sets of those other lenses because DPs want a variety of options and my job is often to provide those options.

The architects of all DALSA lenses are the team at A&S. Eric and Dan do fantastic work, are highly respected for their craft and integrity, and have been for a good long time. The work these guy do is so precise and complicated I find it amazing. A perfect example of one of Dan's little projects can be found in the January American Cinematographer piece on "There Will Be Blood."

I feel extremely fortunate that we have these artists getting to "play"... that is experimenting, developing and perfecting wonderful new optical technology to mate perfectly with our camera system. To my knowledge the DALSA 4K lenses are truly the world's first digital cinema optics (spherical and anamorphic) designed and built specifically for 4K. There will be some new fun lenses on display at Cine Gear.

I.

Illya Friedman
DALSA
Digital Cinema Division
www.dalsa.com/dc (http://www.dalsa.com/dc)

Illya very impressive.


Also I heard long ago that the most GLASS that is used in brand new DALSA set is Leica based glass.

But that about Laica AG doesn't want to hear something like that till they will have developed Cine line lenses.

Also it is a lot about patent infringement, etc...

It's a pitty that recent 80 years of German history gave Leica a lot of troubles to fight for a survival.

Obviously that the companies like a Panavision and Dalsa benefit from this however it is a legal doing things or not.