Before and after RED

[Sanjin Jukic]

Before and after RED.

I do not believe in all this stories about huge differences that still lenses have towards so called cine lenses according the issues of breathing, vignetting and chromatic aberration.

So what should be 'Before and after RED'?

The RED will show us that at the end of any future 4K digital acquisition/production it could be possible to stick with the still lenses without asking for enormous budget that spending on so called "cine" lenses. What I would like to say it is that everything or all aesthetic choices are in the hands of film director/ in the case of Hollywood is a film producer because director is just hired or one ordinary employee. He/She can choose and AVOID the certain things that still lenses can not do well with the motion pictures. That claims so called cine lenses are not so better than still lenses at all. Also this could not "heart" a total cinematography aesthetic film look. What I want to say is that after the RED ONE ALL THE G R E A T STILL LENSES ARE ALSO THE GREAT CINE LENSES.


AFTER THE RED ONE JUST FORGET "CINE" LENSES. All that is for a stone age of S16mm, 35mm film or a wide range of expensive digital and today's obsolete 1080p acquisition with Sony Cinealta or F23, Panasonic Varicam, Panavision Genesis and Thompson Viper...similar all those brothers and sisters.

The RED ONE is a winner.

[Mike the beginner]

The still lenses verses the cine lenses could turn up some interesting developments. As DSLR cameras start to concentrate on faster frame rates and better resolution this in itself might start a move to better percieved or real end product in the brand new still lenses geared for the professioanal photographers. You pay more and get a little improvement.

I think the move will maybe start when canon introduce their new lenses to go with their forthcoming new top line camera (someone already mentioned this). So in effect we will see better still lenses possibly in time more suited to cine use than their previous lenses but at a significant premiem pricewise to match the slightly better quality.

Cine lenses might start to shift downwards in price particularly if red takes off real big time and we see 5,000 + cameras sold in two years say. Prices have risen for now, but once red lenses start hitting the market at a quality and price point significantly lower than competitors coupled with the developments of the still lenses, we should see an overall price drop for cine lenses.

Third party support for still lens mounts with zoom and other support could be a deciding factor in the choice between b4 mounts and 2/3 rd HD lenses. I would love to see red leave room for a zoom controller or something on its forthcoming red zoom so that it could be fitted out as an alternative to the b4 solution. In other word the gap between still lenses and cine lenses might narrow anyway.Just a beginners thoughts, thats all.

Mike the beginner

[Sanjin Jukic]

Mike, very good notions!!!

[Matt Uhry]

I agree that the cost of cine lenses seems high when compared to still equipment. However for professionals who are hired to work on well funded projects where our reputations are on the line it makes perfect sense to use the best tools possible. ( and if production is willing to pay, it's self destructive not to... )

I would not hold out hope that the still camera companies are going to suddenly start to make new lenses that are useful for cinema. All trends point toward auto-focus mechanics ( loose, which is easy for the AF motor to operate but causes image shift ) the disappearing iris ring, and the trend toward techie gizmos like stabilization and away from wide apertures. Simply put their needs and our needs are not really aligned.

MF AIS Nikors would seem to be the high water mark as far as a wide selection of lenses mechanically suited to cine use. Yes Evin the 17-35 is nice too.

Good Luck and Happy Shooting!
Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[steevo435]

Sanjin-
Your remarks are a waste of space. Do you really think that Cine lenses are more expensive because they say they are designed for cine? You obviously have no experience in cinema, good luck with shooting sharp pics with still lenses.

[Paul Hazlett]

Sanjin-
Your remarks are a waste of space. Do you really think that Cine lenses are more expensive because they say they are designed for cine? You obviously have no experience in cinema, good luck with shooting sharp pics with still lenses.

Stevoo Everyone has a right an opinion. Sanjin is simply airing his views
and your comment is counterproductive. Instead of trying to shut him down.
please offer intelligent rebuttal we can all ponder.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Sanjin-
Your remarks are a waste of space. Do you really think that Cine lenses are more expensive because they say they are designed for cine? You obviously have no experience in cinema, good luck with shooting sharp pics with still lenses.

QUOTE:
"RED RENDERS OBSOLESCENCE OBSOLETE"

RED will soon change many things how we making and producing the films. Great manual still lenses and maybe some AF/EOS type still lenses with a little help from Birger Engineering will show very soon what is what, who is who in OPTICAL QUALITY of new digital cine production. It is ALL about a new and REVOLUTIONARY cinema acquisition with "the RED ONE™ camera like a future-proof acquisition system or digital cine camera with the quality of 35mm film and convenience of pure digital". The old fashion cine cameras will continue to shoot with the extremely expensive "cine lenses" anyway. And there is an old fact that in many cinema rental houses you can find a lot of "still lenses" to hire. The difference between "ordinary" photo manual still lens and "cine conversion" still lens is that they are all modified not optically but only mechanically with adding of PL mount, FF gears or some more marks.

My manual photo-cine still lens collection waiting for the RED ONE:

++Primes:
14mm = Sigma AF/MF 14mm f/1:3.5 Multi Coated
24mm = Nikkor-N A 24mm f/1:2.8
28mm = Nikkor AI-S 28mm f/1:2.8
35mm = Nikkor AI 35mm f/1:1.4
50mm = Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm ZF f/1:1.4
50mm = Nikkor AF 50mm f/1:1.8 D
55mm = Nikkor-R-Micro AI 55mm f/1:3.5 + Auto Extension Ring PK 13
65mm = Leica Elmar 65mm f/1:3.5 Leica-VISO to Nikon F adapter
75mm = Cooke Speed Panchro 75mm f/2, T/2.3 adapted to M42/Nikon F adapter
80mm = Hasselblad - Carl Zeiss Planar T* 80mm f/1:2.8 to Nikon F adapter
85mm = Nikkor AF 85mm f/1:1.8 D
90mm = Leica Summicron 90mm f/1:2.0 Leica-VISO to Nikon F adapter
105mm = Nikkor AI-S 105mm f/1:2.5
135mm = Nikkor-Q A 135mm f/1:2.8
135mm = Schneider-Kreuznach Tele-Xenar 135mm f/1:3.5 M42/Nikon F adapter
180mm = Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar Olympia 180mm f/1:2.8 Nikon F
200mm = Leica Telyt 200mm f/1:4.5 Leica-VISO to Nikon F adapter
500mm = Carl Zeiss Jena Fernobjektiv 500mm f/1:8.0 M42/Nikon F adapter

++Zooms:
17-35mm = Nikkor AF 17-35mm f/1:2.8 D ED
35-80mm = Nikkor AF 35-80mm f/1:4.0-5.6 D
70-210mm = Nikkor AF 70-210mm f/1:4.0-5.6
100-300mm = Soligor Nikon/F 100-300mm f/1:5.0

And one more thing to the end>>the quote from ZEISS:
"ZF lenses provide Nikon F-mount cameras with the creative potential and phototechnical performance available so far only in the Contax system. In addition, ZF lenses incorporate new technical advances from the ZEISS Ultra Prime®, Master Prime® and DigiPrime® lenses for motion picture cameras. Results have been seen in feature films like "Lord of the Rings", "Alexander", "King Arthur", "Air Force One", "Collateral", "King Kong" and many commercials and music clips.

Like the ZEISS lenses for motion picture, ZF lenses feature unusually high mechanical quality, fixed focal length, very precise manual focussing, reliability, and exceptional durability. Special attention is paid to guarantee absolute color matching throughout the whole range of lenses resulting in state-of-the-art image quality."
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/ContentsWWWIntern/8E8AE439A3FD6101C125711B005A77C4

[Mike the beginner]

The choice betwen using still lenses and using cine lenses will be down to whoever makes the decisions be it director/owner or whatever. Even a beginner like me is aware of the differences between both types of lenses. So here is my further thoughts on the matter:umm:

The focsing issues looks like it would make my job much tougher trying to focus with still lenses mainly due to the small movement of the focus ring on still lenses compared to cine lenses. So as things stand that is a major negative. But a follow focus or similar device that involves using gears can be made to work superbly on still lenses by the introduction of fine helical gears configured in a manner that would allow the wheel of a Follow focus made for still lense to revolve round exactly the same amount as the wheel on a particular cine lens. The issue of the small turn large movement in focus on still lenses can be cured easiliy if someone is willing to make one. Any backlash from having more gears or more teeth in the gears of the still lens follow focus would be due to how well the item is made and the type of gears used, thats all. The moment someone makes a proper follow focus that negative is suddenly removed.

There are other issues i know breathing etc etc, but ignoring those for the momment lets look at other issues.

Many still lenses dont have proper markings on the lenses and as far as i know none have t stops (perhaps the transmission loss is not relevant in still lens, i dont know) But the professional still photography market is massive compared to the professional cine market and those professionals are demanding more professional still lenses. So new quality still lenses aimed at the pro still guys is sure to have good markings on their lenses.

Maybe someone can chime in here with faster frame rates and the need or lack of any need to take into acount movement on still lenses! In other words does the use of faster frame rates than currently available suggest that still lenses must take into account movement more so in the future? Plus video is not out of the question on new cameras so the lenses might have to take into account movement anyway.

I Just feel that the huge advancement of digital cameras has encouraged an already massive following in still photography to look towards better still lenses leading to better quality and new technology in the making of these still lenses. We are most likely (in fact i would say certain) that will see the gap between cine lenses and still lenses produced for the new pro camera and pro users to become narrower as each year passes. I would not discount image stabilisation not being possible to be used in moving pictures in the very near future. In fact it is still to be given as fact that the IS cannot be used in moving pictures.

The idea that pros still guys want more and better auto features surprises me!Is that true? I would have thought that pro still guys will always demand that full manual use of the lenses as well as auto features is mandatory.

I am positive that the ever increasing development of quality still lenses will rub on to the cine lenses and the differences will become less of an issue. The main problem with that right now is that lens makers who make cine and still lenses have a market and profit to protect.

Cine pro guys making big budget movies where the cost of lenses represents a mere fraction of the overall costs are extremely unlikely to use still lenses. At the other side of the fence are those who regard the purchase of just one cine lens as a major investment and if given the choice might prefer an option that gets you say three top quality still lenses and a specialised birger style mount that gets you to say 90% of what the cine lens can do. That is good enough for me and possibly good enough for others who simply dont have deep pockets for cine lenses.

Sanjin your comments are ones that many of us want to hear. The dvelopment of still lenses to cine use is going to change significantly in the next 24 months (i think) and you obviously feel the same way, more power to your elbow mate:biggrin:

Mike the beginner

[Sanjin Jukic]

Mike thanks for the great thoughts about this topic.

[Michael Hastings]

Sanjin-
Your remarks are a waste of space. Do you really think that Cine lenses are more expensive because they say they are designed for cine? You obviously have no experience in cinema, good luck with shooting sharp pics with still lenses.

Comment seems a little harsh for the spirit of this forum.

It seems to me that there are two separate issues:

1. the inherent sharpness of the lens. I think the point is that the resolution of the better still lenses is within the range of the best that the chip can do.

2. All of the other things that are important in a major motion picture environment. A) Very fast lenses allow less lighting in a studio or indoor location. This might not be so important to a nature shooter out in bright sunlight. B) The ability in practical terms to make a sharp picture with the lens. In other words if the cine lens lets you get regularly get sharp focus because of its greater mechanical precision and range of movement and it saves even one or two retakes then that is a huge deal on a production spending a million dollars a day. Maybe not so important on a $5000/day indie project or documentary. C) The ability to fit into the established shooting style of professional crews and to operate properly with the established accessory equipment is extremely important in the major motion picture environment.

The high price of cine lenses is mostly due to the need to get the last few percent of performance and the low volume of production. If zeiss could sell 5000 of each of their lenses a year prices could easily be half or a third of what they are now. It doesn't mean they aren't worth the price now - it is just the reality of manufacturing and marketing.

The main thing with the still lenses is that in many non major motion picture style shoots they may provide exellent results and in indie style movies there may be workarounds that allow some very high quality results on projects that otherwise would be relegated to prosumer camcorders.

[steevo435]

Guys-
My apologies. What I said was completely counter-productive. Please allow me to elaborate. Statements like the following drive me crazy, and are sort of narrow minded, too....


AFTER THE RED ONE JUST FORGET "CINE" LENSES. All that is for a stone age of S16mm, 35mm film or the range of digital far expensive and today's obsolete 1080p acquisition with Sony Cinealta or F23, Panasonic Varicam, Panavision Genesis and Thompson Viper...similar all those brothers and sisters.


There is always going to be a place for every format listed above, regardless of how "stone age" it may seem. It depends on the project, budgets, the look, equipment availability, available accessories, etc. Your job as a cinematographer is to pick the best tool out of the toolbox for the job, regardless of what format it is. And if you want to survive as a cinematographer, it is your job to be able to use every tool in the box and be aware of what is available to you as a cinematographer. You can't pigeonhole yourself in this business or you won't survive. A carpenter who is great with a hammer but can't cut wood will probably end up washing dishes.


And there is an old fact that in many cinema rental houses you can find a lot of "still lenses" to hire.

I worked in a rental house for 6 years. That particular rental house has the largest inventory of lenses between the two coasts. The only still lenses modified for cine were telephoto primes....canon 400 and 600mm primes, which had very simple (but surprisingly reliable!) mechanics.


The focsing issues looks like it would make my job much tougher trying to focus with still lenses mainly due to the small movement of the focus ring on still lenses compared to cine lenses. So as things stand that is a major negative. But a follow focus or similar device that involves using gears can be made to work superbly on still lenses by the introduction of fine helical gears configured in a manner that would allow the wheel of a Follow focus made for still lense to revolve round exactly the same amount as the wheel on a particular cine lens. The issue of the small turn large movement in focus on still lenses can be cured easiliy if someone is willing to make one. Any backlash from having more gears or more teeth in the gears of the still lens follow focus would be due to how well the item is made and the type of gears used, thats all. The moment someone makes a proper follow focus that negative is suddenly removed.
I Just feel that the huge advancement of digital cameras has encouraged an already massive following in still photography to look towards better still lenses leading to better quality and new technology in the making of these still lenses. We are most likely (in fact i would say certain) that will see the gap between cine lenses and still lenses produced for the new pro camera and pro users to become narrower as each year passes. I would not discount image stabilisation not being possible to be used in moving pictures in the very near future. In fact it is still to be given as fact that the IS cannot be used in moving pictures.


Good stuff, Mike. I would think that AbelCineTech in New York already has gears for still lenses. Really it's just a matter of finding the right pitch and adapting a new gear to an existing Chroszeil FF. Chroszeil already has gears for film pitch, Canon, Fujinon that all attach to the same follow focus.
Both Canon and Fujinon have image stabilizers built in to their 2/3" 40x lenses...
http://www.usa.canon.com/industrial_bctv/p_efp_HJ40_14_intro.shtml
http://www.fujinonbroadcast.com/cgi-bin/products.cgi?p=293
Both work good, not great. Again, I apologize for the harsh statement...I'll try to keep it light and informative.:blush:

[Sanjin Jukic]

Thanks Steevo435.

Also you are right in the most cases. The language of propaganda is always like "a sort of narrow minded". And of course that the cine lenses will continue to rule. No doubts. With the RED ONE mount options a little still photo lenses will have a chance to show their performance soon. We should wait and see how it looks. Then we could say something more about it.