reading...learning & trying to understand...

[Oliver Roetz]

Hi everybody...
this is my first post. I've been following reduser.net for quite a while now and I must say you guys are fantastic. There is so much valuable information in your posts that it is really fun reading. Not to forget the reason why we are all here...the awesome RED...the images Jim recently posted are...incredible. I am just about to get my order ready, but there are still a few things confusing me. So, I hope you guys can help me (I guess my questions are not really that challenging for you). I would appreciate any responses!!!

I am coming from a video background, working with my own Digi-Beta 790WSP and two 2/3 Fujinons: 4,8mmx10 Widepower zoom lens and a 7,8mmx22 long tele zoom lens. I am mostly shooting documentary style and don't like the quality of the lenses to much...but hey, that's what I got. What I do like is the range of the lenses, from very wide to long shots. That's what I would probably call a "classic european" EFP setup. Just for your information: I would use RED for shooting in 4K RAW for getting the best quality possible.

1. Now, if I decide to purchase the Red lenses (18mm-50mm & 50mm-150mm), do I get anywhere close to what I have? Probably not...but how far am I away? I understand that 18mm stays 18mm but the field of view is probably very different. I just don't get it...sorry for asking such a dumb question. The stuff I am doing really needs a lot of wide angle / long shots. Maybe you can just step down on my level and try to explain it again...

2. If I don't get close to where I am now, would I be better of going the Nikon (or Canon) way? More lenses, smaller price...similar quality? Or would it even be better going the HD lenses way (4K RAW???)?

3. If the 18mm-50mm is not wide enough (the 50mm-150mm not long enough), would it be possible to use lens add ons like http://www.schneideroptics.com
or (if possible at all) would it be a big decrease in quality? Or is it just ridiculous?

4. Since I am coming from an EFP background I am used to zoom in and out with my right hand...be it handheld or on the tripod. Will this be possible with the Nikon, Canon or Red lenses using the supergrip? Unfortunately I could not find any pictures of the supergrip and what it does exactly.


I am sure that some of the questions have been discussed on this forum. I did search the archives, found a bit...but hopefully some people will take their time to answer - I'd really appreciate it!!!

Thanks a lot...and happy waiting for your RED...

Cheers, Oliver

[Kevin Halverson]

Welcome aboard Oliver.

Your questions really come down to the difference in the angle of view of the two cameras. In the case of your two zooms, you are covering a very large range of focal lengths. Cine style zooms typically have shorter ranges but are of higher resolving power and are typically faster than ENG ones.

In the case of your shortest lens, the 4.8mm, this will give you an angle of view of about 90 degrees. To achieve this angle of view on a S35 sized imager (like the RED) you would need about a 12mm focal length lens. On the other end of your example (the long end of your 7.8 to 172) your angle of view would be about 3.2 degrees. To achieve this angle of view on a S35 sized imager you would need a 430 mm lens.

If you go with the two zooms you have listed, you will fall short of covering the short and long extremes of your current setup, but will experience a massive increase in image quality.

I really can't imagine why you would need to record RAW particularly for a ENG/EFP type of shoot. I would think that REDCODE would be more than adequate.

Be sure to use the search feature here, there is a lot of great information available.

[Oliver Roetz]

Thanks khmuse for your response - it cleared things up a bit. And sorry for answering so late...I was on a shooting for a couple of days.

You are right that REDCODE is certainly more than adequate for most of the stuff we EFP guys are doing. But I'd rather look for the best quality possible. And I am not sure about loosing 2/3 of the sensor when I can still convert it in postproduction.

Anyway, right after I posted here I found a couple of very interesting threads dealing with the same issues I came up with...so I am carefully going to follow the forum instead of bothering you guys again with silly questions.

Regards, Oliver

[Steve Gibby]

Welcome to RED User Oliver...

Since you come from an EFP background and said you'll be primarily using RED One for EFP work, have you visited the "EFP & ENG for RED" forum on RED User? Most of the questions you're asking have been discussed heavily on threads within that forum.

Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=8

[PaulClements]

Hi Oliver,

Welcome to the forum,


You are right that REDCODE is certainly more than adequate for most of the stuff we EFP guys are doing. But I'd rather look for the best quality possible. And I am not sure about loosing 2/3 of the sensor when I can still convert it in postproduction.

There is a difference between RAW and REDCODE RAW. RAW requires a RAID setup of somekind because you are taking the data uncompressed from the sensor. REDCODE RAW is still RAW data but using compression to make the file size smaller and we can therefore record to onboard media. REDCODE RAW is said to be visually lossless compared to RAW yet the size of each second of footage is massively different (RAW=328MB REDCODE=27MB).

Using REDCODE RAW you still shoot 4k so you would not lose 2/3rds of the sensor, that would only happen if you shot at 2k.


...so I am carefully going to follow the forum instead of bothering you guys again with silly questions.


Feel free to ask questions, it's what makes a forum interesting. Goodness knows I've asked my fair share!

Cheers

Paul

[Sean Michael Johnston]

In the case of your shortest lens, the 4.8mm, this will give you an angle of view of about 90 degrees. To achieve this angle of view on a S35 sized imager (like the RED) you would need about a 12mm focal length lens. On the other end of your example (the long end of your 7.8 to 172) your angle of view would be about 3.2 degrees. To achieve this angle of view on a S35 sized imager you would need a 430 mm lens.


khmuse, how did you come to those numbers on your conversion factors?
I've been looking for a calculator on the web for going from 2/3" to S35 and back.

[Oliver Roetz]

Gibby & Paul, thanks for your responses!
It's getting harder to keep an overview on what has been posted so far...I'll do my very best...:wink:

@Paul: Yep, I was talking about REDCODE RAW...still looking for the right choice of lenses...probably like a lot of people round here.


@Sean: I can remember that there was another post talking about the format calculation...I just can't remember where to find it :blush: ...so, what about this site: http://home.germany.net/101-81660/Daten4.htm
It doesn't have the S35 numbers, but the rest ist there...Hopefully it helps.

regards, Oliver

[Kevin Halverson]

khmuse, how did you come to those numbers on your conversion factors?
I've been looking for a calculator on the web for going from 2/3" to S35 and back.


Sorry, but I don't know of a "calculator" for this conversion. I just used a bit of math, rather simple. If you want the underlying formula's let me know, otherwise perhaps someone knows of a "calculator" for just such a task.

[chuck colburn]

http://www.panavision.com/tools.php

[Kevin Halverson]

I knew someone would know of a resource.

The math is rather simple, just a small amount of trig is all you need. Assuming that your aspect ratio is similar, then just calculate the resulting angle of view a given size imager (or film frame) will exhibit for any given focal length. If dissimilar, then I would suggest that you use the frame width only since that is the direction that is usually of greatest interest.

Angle (in degrees) = 2 x (tan-1 (d/2fl))

Where d = width, height or diagonal of the imager (in mm)
and fl = focal length (in mm)