New RPP news...

[Jannard]

After finally getting a new lens projector and reticle that shows full frame 35mm, I am happy to report the the RPP 300mm, 100mm, 85mm and 50mm lenses cover 6K 2:1 on the FF35 with great resolution out to the edges. The 35mm and 25mm will cover about 5.5K on the FF35 sensor.

A little piece of good news for those that took a leap of faith on a set of RPPs.

Jim

[Alex Boothby]

Great stuff. I just ordered 1 hour ago. Did I make it in time to secure priority status?
Thanks

[Greg M]

great news, thanks.

how is the 18-85mm looking?

[Frank Weeks]

Ordered today. Feel even better.

[Joseph Ward]

Thats great news! Will there be Red FF35 Primes?:)

[Steve Freebairn]

These lenses keep getting better and better. Especially since the lenses effectively act like wider angle lenses on that large of a sensor anyway.

[Alex Boothby]

the RPP 300mm, 100mm, 85mm and 50mm lenses cover 6K FF35 with great resolution out to the edges. The 35mm and 25mm will cover about 5.5K on the FF35 sensor.

Jim

Wow do you mean Monstro FF35 with it's larger pixels and not Mysterium-X S35? I believe you previously mentioned 4.75K as a safe guess for shooting FF35.

[Mike Prevette]

Ordered right away, can we get some pics ;)

[Brent@RED]

Great stuff. I just ordered 1 hour ago. Did I make it in time to secure priority status?
Thanks

You made it, Alex. Every RED ONE camera owner has another 3.5 hours to get into the priority-by-camera-delivery-date queue. Once the clock strikes midnight here in California, it is "first come, first serve".

BC

[Tim Whitcomb]

Brent. Will you guys also give out serial numbers (reference numbers) on the first come first serve so we know how many are head of us? I ordered several days ago, but dont own a RED ONE.... YET ;)

[Justin O'Neill]

You got me. I finally put an order in. So glad the 18mm has been fast tracked, that made the decision easier.

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

nice info,
what attracts me is the "leap of faith" ...

[Brent@RED]

Brent. Will you guys also give out serial numbers (reference numbers) on the first come first serve so we know how many are head of us? I ordered several days ago, but dont own a RED ONE.... YET ;)

No, Tim, no reservation numbers - just an order confirmation number :)

BC

[Paris Remillard]

Any plans to make a 25mm and a 35mm that will cover FF35?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The RED electronic lenses are supposed to cover FF35. I'm sure there will be options with those.

[Alex Boothby]

So glad the 18mm has been fast tracked.

Did I miss some news on the 18mm? Is there any word on it's release?

[Alex Boothby]

You made it, Alex. Every RED ONE camera owner has another 3.5 hours to get into the priority-by-camera-delivery-date queue. Once the clock strikes midnight here in California, it is "first come, first serve".

BC

Thanks Brent :)

[Tim Whitcomb]

Did I miss some news on the 18mm? Is there any word on it's release?

Jim said somewhere earlier this month about it being "a couple months behind the first set" and 14,16, 40 etc not far after that.

search his posts. it shouldnt be far down

[Tim Whitcomb]

No, Tim, no reservation numbers - just an order confirmation number :)

BC

I already have that... but not sure what the number means
relative to order priority.. so was wondering if a separate email
will be sent to everyone establishing that ?

and thanks for speedy response!

[Justin O'Neill]

Did I miss some news on the 18mm? Is there any word on it's release?

Here are the threads:



18mm T1.8 (in rapid development)- $3800 (set price) and $4250 individual price


18mm T1.8 (to match the set) will follow the first five lenses a few short months after delivery begins. Other lenses, including 14/15mm are in design.

Jim

[IAN SUN]

That is great news Jim. Will the 18mm follow the 35 and 25 and top out at 5.5?

[Jannard]

That is great news Jim. Will the 18mm follow the 35 and 25 and top out at 5.5?

Not sure yet of the exact coverage, but it should be at least 5.5K.

Jim

[Lee Saxon]

Great news, Jim. The S35-format 300, 100, 85, & 50 mounted on FF35 should have field of view equivalent to ~ 230, 75, 65, 40 FF35-format lenses, right?

[AIO Films]

Great news, Jim. The S35-format 300, 100, 85, & 50 mounted on FF35 should have field of view equivalent to ~ 230, 75, 65, 40 FF35-format lenses, right?

I guess not. A 300mm is a 300mm anywhere you use it, so is a 50mm a 50mm whatever camera you put it on, if I understand correctly. You just see a wider angle of view on a FF35 6K than on a S35 Epic 5K. Others please chime in.

[Jannard]

Key words are "acts like". A 50mm is a 50mm everywhere. But it "acts like" either a wide, normal or long lens depending on the sensor size.

Jim

[Brian Broz]

April 28th: Tried to order prime set+300m entered CC# and I get this:
Error 500
Unknown server error

Anyone else experiencing this?! Trying to get my order in before the deadline!!!!

BBroz

Edit: Now Safari just hangs when I checkout:-( Maybe everyone is ordering right now?!
Edit 11:43PM PST: Changed checkout to wire transfer and still getting Error 500

[Matthew Verkler]

I just tried to put a deposit on the RRP set. Same thing: unknown server error once I tried to confirm the order. It's 11:44 PM on April 28, California time. I assume that the deadline can be waived due to the server issues?

Matthew Verkler

[Matthew Verkler]

11:45 PM. Now it works. Deposit placed.

Matthew Verkler

[Brian Broz]

Safari just hangs when I checkout.
Will keep trying...15 min to go!
:head_explode:

Edit: Works 11:49PM. Stressed but relieved:-)

[Matthew Verkler]

Safari worked for me, 11:45 PM.

Matthew Verkler

[Lee Saxon]

Great news, Jim. The S35-format 300, 100, 85, & 50 mounted on FF35 should have field of view equivalent to ~ 230, 75, 65, 40 FF35-format lenses, right?I guess not. A 300mm is a 300mm anywhere you use it, so is a 50mm a 50mm whatever camera you put it on, if I understand correctly. You just see a wider angle of view on a FF35 6K than on a S35 Epic 5K. Others please chime in.

Yeah, we're on the same page.

You're right, a 300mm is a 300mm in the sense that spatial compression and depth of field (and barrel distortion on a cheap 300mm but I'm sure not Red's!) characteristics would not change.

The wider angle/field of view is all I was referring to. What I was saying is that an S35-format 300mm lens mounted on a FF35 camera would give the same field of view as a FF35-format 230mm (if my math is right) lens mounted on a FF35 camera.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Wow! It just keeps getting better. Great news!

I am curious if this will have an effect on the Red Rocket spec of RT debayer and downconversion from 5k.

[Matt Uhry]

So if we're using a normal delivery aspect ratio 16:9 for instance and 10% look-around, we'll be cool on the the 24x36mm FF sensor with the Pro primes.

Nice !

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

[KETCH ROSSi]

After finally getting a new lens projector and reticle that shows full frame 35mm, I am happy to report the the RPP 300mm, 100mm, 85mm and 50mm lenses cover 6K 2:1 on the FF35 with great resolution out to the edges. The 35mm and 25mm will cover about 5.5K on the FF35 sensor.

A little piece of good news for those that took a leap of faith on a set of RPPs.

Jim

This is a great news as even so I'll be getting few Scarlets, as they come out, my intention is to get the FF35, and then move to the 645.

I absolutely love the RPP and can't wait to start shooting with them, it will be refreshing to show up at a High Fashion Photo Shot with those babes :)

ciao

[Häakon]

I guess not. A 300mm is a 300mm anywhere you use it, so is a 50mm a 50mm whatever camera you put it on, if I understand correctly. You just see a wider angle of view on a FF35 6K than on a S35 Epic 5K. Others please chime in.
I feel that this discussion is in the same ballpark as saying sensor size has an impact on DOF (and you aren't going to be able to please everyone on the issue). While technically it's the focal distance and lens aperture that effects the DOF, in order to maintain a specific field of view on cameras with different sensor sizes, the focal distance has to change. Therefore, even though there's no literal connection between sensor size and DOF, there's a hugely practical one and it's much easier to think in those terms.

When comparing field of view on a still camera, most photographers think in terms of FF35 coverage when referencing lens attributes. (Obviously this is not the case for medium and large format shooters; I'm just speaking generally). This is why it's really important to know the "crop factor" for your camera if it doesn't have a FF35 sensor, so you can quickly and easily determine how that lens is going to "act" on your particular camera body. Yes, a 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens, but it may "act like" an 80mm lens on your camera with a smaller sensor. The catch is, what we're really saying is that it acts like an 80mm lens would on a FF35 camera. There's more of a standard in place there to reference.

This whole discussion can be rather confusing without a standard in place to compare FOV values to. My guess is that most people would prefer to use the s35mm standard for cinema use, but as RED is opens the door for much larger formats and sizes with their new line of cameras that may change. So while a 300mm lens is always a 300mm lens, the effect of that lens can be dramatically different depending on what camera it is attached to. Thus, there's an important need to quantify exactly what FOV you will get for a particular combination of lens and sensor size, and this is where a FOV calculator comes in handy. You can Google it rather easily (though keep in mind that most FOV calculators online use the FF35mm negative size as a base), or use something like the iSee4K iPhone app to determine particular frame sizes.

[Lee Saxon]

While technically it's the focal distance and lens aperture that effects the DOF, in order to maintain a specific field of view on cameras with different sensor sizes, the focal distance has to change. Therefore, even though there's no literal connection between sensor size and DOF, there's a hugely practical one and it's much easier to think in those terms.

I agree, that always makes discussing this issue confusing. You'll have one guy who's talking about literally the same lens on two different formats and another guy who is talking about two different lenses with equivalent FoV and there's often little way to tell which one is which!

[Andrew Walker]

So all we need now is a 5.5K setting on the FF35 Epics.

[Shawn Nelson]

So all we need now is a 5.5K setting on the FF35 Epics.

And we need the FF35 brain to not be $33k for the brain alone :-).

[Andrew Walker]

And we need the FF35 brain to not be $33k for the brain alone :-).

Yeah that would be nice. But I guess if you want to play big you got to pay big. We'll just have to see what happens when those FF35 models get closer to being a reality. Would be awesome if there was some kind of trade in for the Epic X to the FF35 Epic so we don't get whacked for the full price. I'm sure Jim has a couple surprises up his sleeves. But still the current deal to go from our Red One's to the Epic brains is unheard of.

[Häakon]

So all we need now is a 5.5K setting on the FF35 Epics.
In what aspect ratio? "5.5K" is just a number of pixels...

[Jonathan Betz]

With all this talk of lenses, I thought I'd pose a question. My apologies in advance if this is too basic or perhaps not the best place for this post.

I am looking to purchase a camera to film wildlife (I am a recent college graduate just starting my career). I obviously would benefit greatly from interchangeable lenses, and so I have had my eye on the Red Scarlets for a while. The only problem is, I am unsure about which lenses would be best for wildlife filming. I have been using a Sony FX1, but have been very limited by the 12x zoom. Can someone give me some advice, or point me to some resources that might explain the correlation between mm and magnification, and also might advise which sizes (and even lens mounts) might be best for wildlife filming. Can anyone confirm that the Scarlet would be a good choice for wildlife film? It seems like it will be an amazing and portable camera, but as I said I am somewhat of a beginner and am not sure how to invest in a first good camera.

Cheers

[Denis Buhot]

you will find very useful and practical informations in steve Gibby's posts.

As for my personal experience, I need a wide angle (I myself own nikon, 2.8, 17-35mm), a medium range zoom (2.8, 120-300mm sigma), and a very big zoom (5.6, 300-800mm sigma "sigmonster"). Two still lenses : canon, 4.5, 600mm and nikon 2.8, 180mm). Zoom lenses are a must : just finding a fast moving subject kind be a problem when it comes to still lenses over 200 mm... With a zoom, you can zoom down and up again in one second.

All of them give terrific results, given proper light conditions. 4K will offer what was inconceivable before : wide, natural frame (not zoo picture looking) yet retaining amazing details. Sigma may seem second choice brand, but the truth is that you'll find no other lens with specifications like these, and standing shoulder to shoulder with the best primes (beware of possible lemons, though...)

I'm based in Europe, fauna is shy there. Sigmonster might be overkill if you plan to film in Alaska or Africa.

Don't forget you'll need an aperture ring or use a birger mount.

Choose big apertures... the mysterium is rated 320 iso only, the fauna prefers dawn and sunset, and the heat shimmer is much less then...

Don't forget a sturdy tripod...

Consider the weight of the whole setup... You will have to add some lens support device, and at least 6 battery packs per day, since the red one boot-up time is an eternity, and there is no sleep-mode function. If you travel by car in Africa, no problem. If you have to hike your way through adverse terrain, well... you'd better lift weight, or choose some other camera !

Hope that helps :-)

[Jonathan Betz]

The magnification/field of view issue seems to be confusing others as well as myself, so I hope this post may stir up some answers/clarification. I am interested in the 2/3" Scarlet, so my calculations will use this sensor.

After doing some research online, this is what I have learned regarding lenses and image cropping. The 2/3" Scarlet sensor is smaller (10.1mm x 5.35mm) than the 35mm frame area (36mm x 24mm). Thus, when a 35mm lens projects an image onto the Red sensor, only the central portion of the image is captured (because the image is much larger than the sensor). This seems like it provides at least one advantage: lenses designed for 35mm cameras effectively act like more expensive lenses because you are only using the "sweet spot" of the lens elements. But that aside, it also seems that 35mm lenses would provide higher magnification on a Scarlet (I'm not sure if magnification is the right word, but it seems like the subjects would be larger in the frame).

Regarding the magnitude of cropping: to determine the magnitude of the cropping effect, just compare the diagonal measurements of the 35mm frame to the Red sensor. The 35mm diagonal is 43.27mm, and the Scarlet diagonal is 11.43mm. Dividing these gives a ratio of 3.79, indicating that a 100mm lens (designed for a 35mm camera) used on a Red Scarlet will provide the same field of view as a 379mm lens on a 35mm camera. It seems like this would be a great advantage. For instance, it seems like if I am looking for the field of view of a 300 or 400mm lens to film wildlife, I only need to really find an 80 or 100mm 35mm lens to use with the Red. Is this cropping truly an advantage, providing closer views of distant objects when using standard 35mm lenses, or is it a disadvantage somehow (in terms of image quality or something else I am missing)?

Also, It seems like focal length is often used as a short-hand for field of view, but this is assuming we are talking about 35mm still focal lengths, right?

If these question would be better placed in another thread, can someone point me in that direction? Cheers.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Also, It seems like focal length is often used as a short-hand for field of view, but this is assuming we are talking about 35mm still focal lengths, right?

This is a common misconception around here and throughout the industry. :angry:

Focal lengths are based on millimeters as a standard and a focal length remains constant, no matter what format you are shooting. So a 12mm lens produces the same angle of view (AOV), whether it's a 12mm lens designed for 35mm cinema, full frame 35mm photography, or 2/3" HD. a 12mm lens is a 12mm lens, a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens and so on...

What does change is the field of view (FOV) and it is determined, mostly, by two factors. One is the format you are shooting to (S35, FF35, 2/3", etc..). A larger image area, film plane or sensor will yield a larger FOV at any given focal length than a smaller image area will. The other factor that determines FOV is lens design and construction. A lens can be made with larger elements and mounts to allow for a larger image circle or greater coverage at a given focal length. Therefore a 12mm lens designed for 35mm cinema will, generally speaking, be larger than a 12mm lens designed for 2/3" video.

So, if you take a 12mm S35 lens and put it on a 2/3" sensor, you will see about a 54 degree FOV. That same lens would be about 109 degrees FOV on S35 format. OTOH, if you took a 12mm lens designed for 2/3" or 16mm, it would still give the 54 degree FOV on its intended format, but when placed on a S35 camera, it would not cover the entire area. It would still give the exact same AOV as the S35 lens mentioned above, but it's not designed to cover the larger format, so it's FOV would be restricted in that it would start to vignette and probably not cover the entire frame.

With smaller image areas, it takes relatively shorter focal lengths to deliver wider FOVs than with larger image areas. That is why when you look at 2/3" or 16mm lenses, they tend to have shorter focal lengths like 9mm on the wide end of a standard kit vs. the 18mm on the wide end of a S35 kit.

[Jonathan Betz]

This all makes sense, but still begs the question, is this cropping effect (using 35mm still lenses on a smaller DSLR/DMSLR sensor) an advantage or a disadvantage? In my understanding, it is an advantage for me because it would allow me to capture images of subjects that fill the frame where they would appear smaller if I used the same lens on a 35mm camera. In other words, it seems like I would be getting more magnification for the money. I am wondering, however, whether this is indeed the case. Are there any problems with cropping or is it really an advantage as I have explained it?

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's neither an advantage or disadvantage. It just is what it is. Larger 35mm format lenses are typically bigger physically and cost more money. It's true that you are using the "sweet spot" of the lens in some respects, when you only capture the center of the image that gets projected onto the image plane. OTOH, 16mm and 2/3" glass doesn't lose sharpness from center to edge to the same degree because of the smaller elements in relation to focal length and these smaller lenses can often carry a higher overall MTF rating. Many newer lenses or most current lens designs in general, have much more even illumination and sharpness into the corners, this is not as big a concern as it was with glass a few years ago.

IMO, if you only want to shoot in a 2/3" format, you won't be doing yourself any favors by trying to shoot with 35mm format glass in most cases. You will be lacking the wider focal lengths that you may often desire and gaining nothing over shooting the larger 35mm format to begin with and simply cropping out the desired area of the image. In that respect, you don't get more magnification for the money. Or at least the lenses themselves don't provide that. It seems that 2/3" Scarlet will have more pixels or photosites within the 2/3" area compared to S35 Scarlet or EPIC within their 2/3" cropped area. So you may get a little more magnification for your money in that way. But there could be other trade-offs to gain that higher pixel density at that size; like less sensitivity (slower ISO rating). But at this time, we don't have all the specs, so this is just conjecture at best when comparing the upcoming cameras.

[Jonathan Betz]

Thanks Jeff. I think we are on the same page. I guess it's just a bit frustrating that many people recommend 300 or 400mm lenses (35mm) for filming wildlife, but then I don't really know which 2/3" or 16mm lenses correspond to these 35mm focal lengths. It would be easier if everyone just referred to FOV.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

First off, don't think of them as "35mm focal lengths". You'll just end up confusing yourself or others you work with if you say things like "35mm focal lengths". If someone says they shot something with a 300mm, then you can ask them what camera or format. 300mm lenses are available on various formats, not just 35mm. And they always produce the same viewable angle per mm regardless of whether they're on a 35mm camera or a 2/3" camera or whatever.

Best way to look at it is with a cheat sheet or conversion table. There are a number of conversion charts out there, some free, some not. As well as just simple math (simple trigonometry that is) that will tell you the FOV based on the focal length and format size. Try to avoid referencing or buying into "crop factors" terminology that a lot of people like to use. Crop factors are relative and I see so many people talk about crop factors here and they use them incorrectly. They also rely on a frame of reference, such as RED One 4K is roughly a 1.7X, in regards to frame width, from a FF35 sensor. But to go around saying that RED One 4K has a 1.7X crop factor makes little sense to anyone other than someone who is familiar with shooting FF35 most of the time.

The actual math to calculate your angle of view can be referenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view).

Best thing to do is just make table that has Focal length in mm horizontally across the top and common formats like FF35, S35, 2/3", etc.. in the left vertical column. Then all you have to do is if you're shooting 2/3" and want a 27 degree AOV, you can reference 27 degrees in the 2/3" row and follow the the column up to the top to see what focal length you need.

[Tim Whitcomb]

First off, don't think of them as "35mm focal lengths". You'll just end up confusing yourself or others you work with if you say things like "35mm focal lengths". If someone says they shot something with a 300mm, then you can ask them what camera or format. 300mm lenses are available on various formats, not just 35mm. And they always produce the same viewable angle per mm regardless of whether they're on a 35mm camera or a 2/3" camera or whatever.

Best way to look at it is with a cheat sheet or conversion table. There are a number of conversion charts out there, some free, some not. As well as just simple math (simple trigonometry that is) that will tell you the FOV based on the focal length and format size. Try to avoid referencing or buying into "crop factors" terminology that a lot of people like to use. Crop factors are relative and I see so many people talk about crop factors here and they use them incorrectly. They also rely on a frame of reference, such as RED One 4K is roughly a 1.7X, in regards to frame width, from a FF35 sensor. But to go around saying that RED One 4K has a 1.7X crop factor makes little sense to anyone other than someone who is familiar with shooting FF35 most of the time.

The actual math to calculate your angle of view can be referenced here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_view).

Best thing to do is just make table that has Focal length in mm horizontally across the top and common formats like FF35, S35, 2/3", etc.. in the left vertical column. Then all you have to do is if you're shooting 2/3" and want a 27 degree AOV, you can reference 27 degrees in the 2/3" row and follow the the column up to the top to see what focal length you need.

Jeff- could you be more specific? :sarcasm:

Seriously. thank you for sharing all this excellent information. I for one appreciate the detail and clarity. Helps a ton in determining lenses
and sensors.

cheers

[Jonathan Betz]

Thanks for the help. As you can tell I am new to this and am just trying to break into the industry with as much knowledge of this stuff as possible. I feel much more comfortable with all of this now, although I know there will always be more to learn.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As a correction to what I posted above, since I know some pedantic perfectionist will eventually try to correct me.... I hastily typed the "crop factor" for RED One 4K and just used a general approximate. It is actually 0.614X the width of FF35, which means that FF35 is 1.627X wider than R1 4K, not 1.7X as I had typed.

[Michael Moreno]

Lookout Jeff i just saw a pedantic perfectionist running naked
from thread to thread on the forum :yikes: