Arri Alexa & RPP

[Esmaile Neissi]

Hi, do any one know if RPP can bee used with Alexa or not?

[Sven Seynaeve]

I suppose it will. Not 100% sure, what about the 18mm???

But as far it's a digital camera as well I see no problems.

Maby someone could confirm this.

[jonnycom]

Yes they will work on Alexa.

[David Battistella]

Yes they will work on Alexa.

Jonnycom.

How can you confirm this. There are film camera's on which the RPP glass can not be used based on the fact that it would interfere with the mirror.

Have you tested this?

David

[Sven Seynaeve]

It's true they won't work with film camera's due to the mechanical shutter i thougth?? But that's not the case with Alexa.

[David Battistella]

It's true they won't work with film camera's due to the mechanical shutter i thougth?? But that's not the case with Alexa.

great to know,

this question has been answered so this thread can be closed.

david

[Kar Wai Ng]

Red Pro Primes can be used on cameras with mechanical shutters except for the 18mm. The A-OV variant of the Alexa has an optical viewfinder so the 18mm is not compatible with it. However all RPPs are compatible with the other two models which have electronic viewfinders.

[OptiTek]

Red Pro Primes can be used on cameras with mechanical shutters except for the 18mm. The A-OV variant of the Alexa has an optical viewfinder so the 18mm is not compatible with it. However all RPPs are compatible with the other two models which have electronic viewfinders.
As vocal as the ovf fans are I think it's on it's way out-certainly for electronic aquisition cameras. There is a slew of OVFs coming due to the DSLR popularity- I know I'm making one. They are getting better and cheaper by the day so the limitations and legacy of OVF have to go...
I think that Alexa with OVF is going to be a very obscure, rare sight..

[Esmaile Neissi]

Guys the red flang distance is 52mm but the alexa flang distance is 54mm so how you see this in terms of colimetery dose they need to be colimated every time we use them with epic or alexa?

[Kar Wai Ng]

No, the flange distance for PL mounts is 52mm. 54mm refers to the diameter.


Guys the red flang distance is 52mm but the alexa flang distance is 54mm so how you see this in terms of colimetery dose they need to be colimated every time we use them with epic or alexa?

[Zakaree Sandberg]

optical is definitely on its way out!!

i was talking with an AC the other day about this.. he was saying "no no no.. optical wont go away.. its what I use", he said..

well hes got 15-20 years on me...
im 27 years old...
When i went to film school, we used a film camera when we were LUCKY.. but the majority of time it was allll digital cameras.. with ELECTRONIC VIEW FINDERS...

its all the new generation knows.. and thus.. it will be the new generation of things

[Robert Horwell]

Red Pro Primes can be used on cameras with mechanical shutters except for the 18mm. The A-OV variant of the Alexa has an optical viewfinder so the 18mm is not compatible with it. However all RPPs are compatible with the other two models which have electronic viewfinders.

I have used all my RPP's on my Aaton Prod without problem. Including the 18mm

[Robert Horwell]

optical is definitely on its way out!!

i was talking with an AC the other day about this.. he was saying "no no no.. optical wont go away.. its what I use", he said..

well hes got 15-20 years on me...
im 27 years old...
When i went to film school, we used a film camera when we were LUCKY.. but the majority of time it was allll digital cameras.. with ELECTRONIC VIEW FINDERS...

its all the new generation knows.. and thus.. it will be the new generation of things

Optical isn't going anywhere, it's still the best way to view an image, through the lens. it's easier on the eye, EVF's are hard work on eyes. For those who can afford the luxury of an OVF, they will have it. If i could have it on my RED for a few thosand more bucks i would, it won't happen, not for that money anyway, but that would be the icing on the cake for me.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

Robert if you dont mind me asking what is your age group?

the reason I ask is because i see alot of guys who are 35 and up saying the same thing..

but alot of the younger guys who grew up digital, only know digital..
there are a few guys who may have been lucky to go to a real FILM school.. but most schools teach with digital cameras...
and thus thats what we know.

optical is great, but you cant see what the sensor sees.. you cant judge exposure except for a meter.. this is why i think evf's will be more abundant..
obviously guys will still want optical.. but in this day and age.. with budgets where they are... it looks like EVF's will be the future.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

for the record.. im not saying optical is BAD.. its a great way to view through your lens..

Im just saying, I see where things are headed..

[OptiTek]

If i could have it on my RED for a few thosand more bucks i would, it won't happen, not for that money anyway, but that would be the icing on the cake for me.
The above quote is the best proof for my statement. A big (?) fan of OVF that won't get it. Because you don't really need it. If you really needed it you would get it regardless of the price. Like camera, lens, monitor, media, tripod, etc. The OVF is not on the same list- it's a legacy that finally comes to an end....

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

With a film camera, an OVF is the only way to go, with the alternative being a parallell viewfiender. (they don´t make those anymore, and for a good reason)
With any digital movie camera, having an OVF will only result in you seeing exactly what you are NOT shooting! (as whenever you see an image, the sensor does not, and vice versa) So for digital aquisition, an OVF simply does NOT make sense in my humble opinion. The only market for the OVF is for the old timers who are so used to it, they can´t feel comfertable with an LCD or EVF. (but they will risk making bad decisions based on what they see in the OVF, which will be the images that does NOT reach the sensor)

Then there is the component of possible mechanical failure to the OVF.

[Mitch Gross]

A digital sensor is like a film stock. You quickly can get used to knowing what its exposure range and sensitivity is. I would never judge exposure by what I see in an electronic viewfinder or onboard LCD, but I certainly can train my eye to know how to expose based on the light around me and what I see through an optical viewfinder. A good DP -- and I don't care if you are 18 or 80 -- can quickly get used to the relative sensitivity and range of the imaging medium he/she is using and then only check the lightmeter for backup.

I've shot several dozen features. For the most part I would pick my combination of T-stop, lighting package and film stock (or electronic sensor camera) in preproduction based on a variety of factors (artistic, economic, logistic, etc.) and go from there. A movie would want a certain relative depth and light level to my thinking and I could plan accordingly. I shot a 35mm feature where my light meter actually broke the first day of principle photography. I sent it off to be repaired and the gaffer gave me occasional readings, but based on the light around me, my familiarity with the lights & stock I was using and what I saw through the optical viewfinder, I knew I could set the lens at my planned T4 and be pretty much spot on. If you train your eye it is not that hard. In fact, I ould say that it is a valuable discipline.

The last thing I want to rely on while looking through the eyepiece is that histogram and traffic light. That's for when I set the lights beforehand and when I'm getting to know the camera and settings I've made. After that I don't want to think about it, as I have more important craftwork to do.

[David Mullen ASC]

You also have to factor that in a bigger union show, the DP isn't behind the camera, he's at the monitors, and often the operators want to turn off any exposure information on the viewfinders as being a distraction. So many prefer looking through an optical viewfinder (less eye fatigue) except for certain camera moves where it is easier to operate with an onboard monitor (and there's nothing stopping you from having both in that case.)

There are pros and cons either way, OVF and EVF (as I said, you can use an OVF and an onboard monitor and get the best of both worlds) but if I had to choose, I'd stick to the EVF for digital cameras just because you need that info sometimes, and it's a good idea to see what signal will be recorded. But it's silly to deny that there are some good things about an optical viewfinder. For one thing, you can line-up a shot without turning on the camera, saving on batteries and not dealing yet with boot-up time.

[OptiTek]

A digital sensor is like a film stock. You quickly can get used to knowing what its exposure range and sensitivity is. I would never judge exposure by what I see in an electronic viewfinder or onboard LCD, but I certainly can train my eye to know how to expose based on the light around me and what I see through an optical viewfinder.
You are kidding right!!!
Ask any video camera operator- they've been around electronic acquisition much longer than anyone and they wouldn't dare expose without waveform. Exposure is the single most important aspect of electronic acquisition because of the limited dynamic range and the linear nature of sensors. Film let you get away with a murder in comparison....
Looking through a finder and its stop loss, the (unknown)lightloss on GG grain?
Good luck exposing with that!!!:nono:

[Mitch Gross]

I'm not kidding. It is experience. You get to know your filmstock with testing. You get to know how it relates to your eye. You get to know how that relates to what you see through the optical viewfinder. I guess in time you could also get to know how to relate that to the limitations of an electronic display device. But you do get to know it.

Seriously, how else would you prelight a scene? People have been doing that for ages WITHOUT the camera present. My experience shooting tells me that If I line up a row of lights of X wattage at a distance of X feet from a window and punch them through a X size sheet of gridcloth, I will get X number of footcandles at X spot in the shot. If don't know, then how can I place the equipment order beforehand to know what gear we will need? How can I have a clue how long it will take to light the set?

This is not rocket science. This is craft and training. If you test a digital camera just as you test a film stock and you see the result of your testing, then you will learn how you like to light it. And then you will learn to see that without need to constantly check an electrical metering device to tell you what yu already know. Certainly it is good to refer to it every now and then to make sure you are still where you think you are, but I would never want to use it as a crutch that I needed at every moment.

I guess your mileage may vary, but I shot my last feature at T4 because that was the look I wanted and the fine tuning necessary to adjust my exposures to the limited range of the electronic sensor were minimal. After a bit of getting my mind wrapped around it I consistently lit by eye, and in final color correct I found my exposures to be pretty darn accurate. And I'm sure that there are guys far better at this than I.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

my point is I guess.. Film = optical
Digital= electronic

digital = more cameras, more productions = new thing
Film = still awesome.. but lets face it.. kinda fading

[Esmaile Neissi]

Me too agree with Mr Mullen.

[Gunleik Groven]

OVF will be good for a lot of rentals for sure.

There's one discussion as to what will be "the future", which is kinda semi-interesting.
Then there's the reality of a lot of DPs. They want an OVF. They'll rent the cam with an OVF. Be it Alexa, D21 or Epic.

But wasn't this thread about the RPPs? on Alexa?

[Robert Horwell]

I'm not kidding. It is experience. You get to know your filmstock with testing. You get to know how it relates to your eye. You get to know how that relates to what you see through the optical viewfinder. I guess in time you could also get to know how to relate that to the limitations of an electronic display device. But you do get to know it.

Seriously, how else would you prelight a scene? People have been doing that for ages WITHOUT the camera present. My experience shooting tells me that If I line up a row of lights of X wattage at a distance of X feet from a window and punch them through a X size sheet of gridcloth, I will get X number of footcandles at X spot in the shot. If don't know, then how can I place the equipment order beforehand to know what gear we will need? How can I have a clue how long it will take to light the set?

This is not rocket science. This is craft and training. If you test a digital camera just as you test a film stock and you see the result of your testing, then you will learn how you like to light it. And then you will learn to see that without need to constantly check an electrical metering device to tell you what yu already know. Certainly it is good to refer to it every now and then to make sure you are still where you think you are, but I would never want to use it as a crutch that I needed at every moment.

I guess your mileage may vary, but I shot my last feature at T4 because that was the look I wanted and the fine tuning necessary to adjust my exposures to the limited range of the electronic sensor were minimal. After a bit of getting my mind wrapped around it I consistently lit by eye, and in final color correct I found my exposures to be pretty darn accurate. And I'm sure that there are guys far better at this than I.

Mitch, so glad your around on this forum. Couldn't agree more. Anyone who has used the D21 will know how lovely it is to use an OVF with digital. We've been using EVF's for a long time now, they are not the enemy, it's just personal choice, i find them hard work on my eye's.

Film isn't fading ( i hear this mantra often, almost wishing it to die as if to prove a point, film is still the future, i want it to be around for a long time yet ) well not in the UK anyway, i'm still working on S16 jobs here, only last week in fact, two lovely little SR3's purring away, like music to my ears:hurray:. The Aaton Penelope's here seem to be constantly grafting, especially on 2 - perf jobs, now that is a camera in a league of it's own.

There has always been a strong video market, digibeta seems to be the format that is suffering more than any other, replaced with the RED and EX1/2/3. The projects i am using my RED on now that don't use film never would have been film anyway, budget is budget, so RED replaces the little sony/canon's i would be using or the digibeta. As an owner operator i offer up the tools i have.

Zakaree, lets just say i'm over 40..!!

[Zakaree Sandberg]

you guys win..
im not arguing for one or the other..
OVF is nice..
EVF is nice..

ovf i easy on the eyes. you looking through the lens..
evf is looking at menus, histograms, seeing what the sensor sees..

anyways.. back to Alexa & RPP

[Bradley Stonesifer]

I have an Alexa package and a Set of Rpprimes and the 18mm wont seat on the camera. The rear element is too long. All other lenses fit fine. Jacek, you up for modifying?

[Ned Wilson]

As an union operator, I prefer optical because you can catch details that you often miss on EVF's such as light stands, extras looking into camera, etc. For exposure, though, I'm a big fan of EVF's. I was brought up on light meters and film, and I find EVF's instant feedback regarding exposure invaluable for digital acquisition. I say make an optical viewfinder with a waveform in the viewfinder that can be turned on and off. It's great to have the ability to look at windows and without a meter and just experience know whether you're clipping or not. Unfortunately, I'd say a good majority of cameraman without an EVF will make irreversible errors. Unlike film, RED's clipping range is a bit less forgiving and a good EVF will save your butt.

And Zack, I think the "old school" "new school" thoery is a dead end. Cameramen ultimately go with what works best. Countless directors and DP's well into their careers jumped on digital before it become the force it is now.

[Chris Bell]

The 18mm will work on the Alexa. Just unscrew the black cover at the rear of the lens. Presto, it fits. All of the other RPPs work without modification.

[bjorn charpentier]

The 18mm will work on the Alexa. Just unscrew the black cover at the rear of the lens. Presto, it fits. All of the other RPPs work without modification.

isn t there a danger to damage the lens if you unscrew the black cover at the end, and won t it change the back focus or makes the lens more fragile ????

because I own a red with RPP 18 till 300 and I own a alexa
so I don t want to damage either one of them

thanks
BC

[Chris Bell]

The rear cone is designed to keep dust out of the lens. It won't damage the lens to remove... it's a good idea to replace it after use to keep the interior of the lens in good working order.

[Max M.]

Does anyone know if the Red 17-50 fit's the Alexa?

[Paul J Steinberg]

I can tell you that the 18-85 Red Pro zoom won't mount onto the Alexa. The tabs on the locking ring of the PL mount collide with the back of the lens so you can't get it mounted properly.