Why not RPP's?

[James McLellan]

I've been looking for a film in widespread distribution that was shot with red pro primes and can't seem to find one. Something theatrically released. Does anyone know of any?

Is it that they are considered too heavy or too sharp? Anyone want to weigh in on this?

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

I guess movies with widespread distribution had a healthier budget and therefore either Master Primes, Cookes or some anamorphic solution (which RED doesn't offer it yet) were used.

Here's a test comparing MPs, Cookes and RPPs: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=38346

[Steve Das]

...Something theatrically released. Does anyone know of any?

Is it that they are considered too heavy or too sharp? Anyone want to weigh in on this?

I don't know...Asked same question myself before and no responce.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

they are great for personal use..but quite frankly, they dont have the greatest rent-ability.. especially for major motion pictures

[Sven Seynaeve]

I suppose they must have been used on some features, but it might got hidden under circumstances I think.

A director I know was certain to use them on his new feature, and he was 100% assured they were very good..... but then suddenly a guy who shoots 1 day a year, or 5 days the last ten years , if you know what I mean just talked him out of it, so they ended up using cookes, just mostly because of snobbism..


admit , how should they look like , if they had to say it was shot on RPP's ,
the film would definately have lost all of it's potential for being professional ;)

[Zakaree Sandberg]

not saying no film has used it.. im just saying the big studio pictures probably shot on zeiss, cooke, angenieux

[Ryan Patrick O'Hara]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

[AnthonyFlores]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

Yah many of the people in the industry (in LA and Canada) I've talked to say they're hard to rent ... unless being added in an attractive indie package. Definitely never heard of them being used on major Hollywood features.

But pretty much most DP's want that snob appeal of a Zeiss UP or MP, Cooke, Angenieux or of course Panavision ... and unfortunately Red lenses, though performance is great, don't have that same cache or tradition.

It's for this reason that I will probably get a set of 2 Optimo Rouges (16-42, 30-80) to start my Epic package, rather than RPP's. Because even though the Rouge set is twice as much -- I actually think they will ROI faster. And yes, a max speed of 2.8 kinda sucks but it will cover 99% the stuff I'm doing this year ...

[Dave Edsall]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

I'm fairly certain that Che was shot with Panavision glass.

I don't have much evidence to back this up but I believe that the majority of the sets of RPP (of which there are many now) are owned by smaller rental houses and individuals. The large rental houses that supply big budget features don't carry RPP (Panavision, Clairmont, Otto, CSC). Keslow is probably the biggest house to carry RPP. When you think that a "big budget" feature will need upwards of 4-5 cameras, 2-3 sets of lenses an accessories, it's a lot harder for a small shop to make a bid.

[George Butterfield]

Rental houses already had their glass before the RED ONE was invented. It's in the rental houses best interest to say their glass is adequate. The indy production can now afford to buy its own equip, EPICS and RPP's, you will see a lot of EPICS and RPP's in the future.

[Zakaree Sandberg]

But pretty much most DP's want that snob appeal of a Zeiss UP or MP, Cooke, Angenieux or of course Panavision ... and unfortunately Red lenses, though performance is great, don't have that same cache or tradition.


Wouldnt say its a "snob appeal"
there is a reason why zeiss, cooke, and angenieux glass is the mainstay in the industry..
and its not for bragging rights.. there is a "look" or quality of certain lenses..

I as a DP wont choose MP personally because I like a little more character, so I am more fond of older glass.. no news there..
and RPP's while great bang for bunk for personal shooters.. do have that MP sterile look..
dont get me wrong though.. I have seen some really pretty images come from both MP and RPP. Im not puting down either glass.
we all have personal taste in lenses.. I like dirty. Ketch and others likes clean.
I respect that, because it gives us different flavors and looks.. I cant say Ill always use older "dirty" glass.. sometimes i pull out my zeiss zfs and shoot clean.

bottom line.. RPPS do look great, but havent caught onto the mainstream rental train yet. If someone really wants the master primes, but cant budget it.. RPP's may def be the way to go.

I expect lenses to become a better investment real soon.. with all the PL mount cameras coming out.. RPPs will make their way onto more productions...

[Steve Das]

I'm fairly certain that Che was shot with Panavision glass.


Yes..seems you are right..but Red 18-50 zoom was used also..as the
production had 2 of them on Part II.


Part One of "Che" was shot in 2.40 anamorphic with Panavision lenses, Part Two was shot spherical 1.85, probably with a mix of lenses including the Red 18-50mm.


Rental houses already had their glass before the RED ONE was invented. It's in the rental houses best interest to say their glass is adequate. The indy production can now afford to buy its own equip, EPICS and RPP's, you will see a lot of EPICS and RPP's in the future.

Think you are pretty much right on with this.

[James McLellan]

Most of this confirms my suspicions. I've been pricing out different primes and it's looking like RPP's are not the only prime in the $20000/set range so even though they are a great deal I had ruled out price. Ideally I'd like to see a film and not know, then have someone inform me it was shot on RPP's. Then I'd have a good idea what I think. In my head I think I am leaning toward Zeiss standard or ultra primes that are lighter. Ultra's are not in the same price range but perhaps I just shoot with two or three. I bet I could cover most things with an 18, 32/50 and 85.

Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

Cheers,

[Nick Gardner]

I think more than optical quality, when you are spending big bucks on your production, you want all of the accurate focus marks that the more expensive lenses offer. That was one of the trade offs for price, a less precise focus scale. If you are blowing $20k an hour you don't want to blow takes or waste time because the lenses are not marked out as well as S4s.

[Steve Das]

You should read the S.A.L.T. lens test reviews..very informative.
Don't give up on the RPP's untill you've shot with them..David
Mullen gave them high praise.


(Opinion 2: David Mullen)
David Mullen’s impressions from S.A.L.T.

Some background: I mainly shoot with Panavision cameras and Primo lenses, so I don’t have much experience with other lenses....So take whatever I say with a grain of salt…

The Red Pro Primes were generally excellent, I mean, scary-good for the most part. They seemed a bit on the cool side, more like Zeiss than Cooke in that regards....

The Red Pro Primes, to me, seem like the most bang for your buck in terms of cost-to-quality ratio. They seem just like lens sets that cost three or four times as much. But someone should check the 50mm to see if the coatings can be improved in terms of the crisp green ghost reflection. And the 100mm could be improved, but then, so could everyone else’s....

The Zeiss Ultra Primes, which I normally use when I’m not shooting Panavision, were not as well-matched as a set as I thought. But otherwise, they are workhorse lenses.

The prettiest lenses for interesting flares were the Zeiss Super Speeds and Standards – if I were going for that “Close Encounters” or “Blade Runner” look without using anamorphics, those lenses would be the best for that.

[Timur Civan]

I think more than optical quality, when you are spending big bucks on your production, you want all of the accurate focus marks that the more expensive lenses offer. That was one of the trade offs for price, a less precise focus scale. If you are blowing $20k an hour you don't want to blow takes or waste time because the lenses are not marked out as well as S4s.

+1

At 20k an hour you dont want ANYTHING blowing takes.

[Jim McKinney]

The only thing in this price range are the "standard" Zeiss primes, which have been around a very long time, and are battle-tested. I might be shooting a low budget feature next month with my Red, and if so, will use my RPP's. But if it was bigger budget, I would go with Cookes or UP's. RPP's are great looking glass. Red Corp. did a magnificent job getting these out to market for the Red owner/op that was looking for affordable glass that was both "current", yet affordable, (in what was otherwise a seller's market at the time.) However, with the demands of production, and the greater range of lenses, (along with the markings issue), I'll go for the mechanics and logistics of the "older" lenses. I still think RPP's are great glass, and an incredible value though.

[Jeremy Torrie]

My observation is this: A Red camera package rental for the run of a show (not including glass) has been very affordable to many productions, particularly in this day and age of shrinking available resources. Removing the need to purchase film stock, then the processing and so on, for example, reduce the bottom line for a producer and PM.

DOP's in the past have made the case (usually in prep) to find a way to shoot film; after all prior to Red there was no true digital alternative to film when talking about dynamic range and so on...one of the unwritten trade offs was this understanding that given the fact a DOP is responsible for the look of a film or show the DOP gets to choose his/her glass.

Because Red has resulted in savings in other areas of the budget, this generally becomes an area where the DOP gets what he/she wants, and there is the cash to play, especially if a rental house has all that 35mm glass sitting around but just lost out on the film package.

And I know from experience big rental houses are notorious for carving out great deals to remind the bean counters that they have the ability to sink the little independent who owns their own R1 MX package...which is why so many of the big rental co's have their own MX's -an affordable camera with a decent ROI that enables you to package it with stuff you've already earned your money back on ages ago. It's net cash in. Period.

And let's face it...as an artist, if given the opportunity wouldn't one want to work with the best tool -in this case glass- that gives the most interesting visual characteristics?

Given all the above I still intend to shoot our next fews features with RPPs...but our features are in the sub $10 Million range. I hope I can continue to evolve my looks for the RPPs because my investment means I will be pushing the whole package, and I hope I will have a variety of results to back up the justification...

[Patrick Tresch]

I'm fairly certain that Che was shot with Panavision glass.



Also RPP didn t exist at that time.

[Sven Seynaeve]

I'll get myself a set and use them along others when I'm shooting.

I'm still thinking there used more often then we can find out right now, but it's just not mentioned, or let's be honest , how much foreign movies do we actually get to see by ourselves once in a lifetime??

I've seen many dvd's and blu-rays in the videorental place, from which I never had heard. Local movies must be glad over here if they reach the 100.000 visitors figure in theatres..... so a lot of movies we will never hear about, even if shot on MP's, UP's, cookes or rpp's. might be different in the states with indies , but here????

[AnthonyFlores]

Wouldnt say its a "snob appeal"
there is a reason why zeiss, cooke, and angenieux glass is the mainstay in the industry..
and its not for bragging rights.. there is a "look" or quality of certain lenses..

I as a DP wont choose MP personally because I like a little more character, so I am more fond of older glass.. no news there..
and RPP's while great bang for bunk for personal shooters.. do have that MP sterile look..
dont get me wrong though.. I have seen some really pretty images come from both MP and RPP. Im not puting down either glass.
we all have personal taste in lenses.. I like dirty. Ketch and others likes clean.
I respect that, because it gives us different flavors and looks.. I cant say Ill always use older "dirty" glass.. sometimes i pull out my zeiss zfs and shoot clean.

bottom line.. RPPS do look great, but havent caught onto the mainstream rental train yet. If someone really wants the master primes, but cant budget it.. RPP's may def be the way to go.

I expect lenses to become a better investment real soon.. with all the PL mount cameras coming out.. RPPs will make their way onto more productions...

I agree with everything you say Zak ... I definitely believe there are distinct looks many DP's are going for with the high-end glass (as well as markings/ergonomics) .... and like you I tend to prefer glass with a bit more character (like Cooke ... or even somewhere in between such as Leica or Angie) ... versus super-sharp but sterile. That said, I do love a lot of what I've seen with MP's and UP's .... just not always my first choice. To me Leica/Panavision is probably ideal -- still super sharp but not quite as cool as Zeiss.

Anyway, my point about "snob appeal" was this -- there are many DP's where, even if you showed them extensive tests/charts/etc of the RPP's performing as well or ever better than these other legendary brands -- they simply would not be open to using them because it's not a prestigious lens name. I'm not saying RPP's ARE better, I'm just saying that even if they were it wouldn't matter to many DP's. Of course not all DP's are like that ... but it IS one of the reasons why RPP's are a bit more challenging to rent out IMHO. As a lens brand, Red still does not have much cache.

For instance ... imagine telling someone in the industry (or even here on the Red forum!) ... "hey I'm shooting a feature on an Epic S35 with Panavision Primos ..." -- they will be like "Whoa!" And if you substitute RPP's in there for the Primos the reaction will still be good ... but not quite be the same :)

Anthony

P.S. -- As an aside, I've appreciated how supportive Red is of other glass companies, never disparaging anyone and never speaking competitively or negatively about another lens brand being used ... that is really awesome to me.

[michael zaletel]

If someone is spending $100 million on a film, the EPIC is the best solution at any price. EPIC is not being used because it costs less than other solutions.

However, there is comparatively little incentive to use RPP's when the budget allows for MP's or PP's. I believe RPP's are RED's little gift to "the rest of us" that want/need the same quality on a reduced budget. Glass is also much more subjective and always will be.

If RED had wanted to compete with those other lenses in terms of branding, they would have priced RPP's at $100k+, limited supply and kept them exclusive. They would have sold at the higher price and probably made the same or greater net profit. I'm glad they didn't.

-michael zaletel

[David C]

I've looked long and hard for a big film that uses RedOne's and RPP's. They don't exist. Out of the biggest R1 productions, most use Angeniuex, Cooke and Zeiss. The only big films I could not find lens information on is Soderberghs... you might want to check those films out (Che / GF experience).

That's your best bet for finding top tier films using RPP's.

I believe Girlfriend Experience was also shot with anamorphics, but I don't know what kind. On imdb it just says Red camera and lenses, so maybe there are some RPP shots in there somewhere? The movie looked great.

[Gunleik Groven]

RPP's are great. But a hard sell.

Showed a DP the 300mm yesterday (thanks Eirik), and the response was very positive. But untill actually using it, the presumptions were not too good.

But to refrase an old slogan:

Noone ever got fired for buying Zeiss...
(and we all remember what happened with the Big Blue shortly after...)

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

Reds first lens the 18-50 has IMHO had a negative effect.

I looked at buying a set of RPP's, however the lack of close focusing was a deal breaker for me. I could have added extra marks to the focus scale.

Stephen

[Roberto Lequeux]

What is this Big Blue event you mention Gunleik?

I would say the factors are:

1. Stigma (low cost and first impression from the first zooms)
2. Focus marks (often biggest factor)
3. Size and Weight
4. Newtonian rings (unless they fit into the style)
5. Slightly less sharp than the best (style is a factor)
6. Slightly less contrasty than the best (style is a factor)

It will take a near flawless generation to earn Red its place among the best lens manufacturers, and given how little could be improved on RPPs I'd guess the next will get that going.

0.00002

[Mark Phelan]

No one ever got fired for buying Zeiss...


Perhaps, but I do recall buying a Zeiss scope many years ago for my rifle and first time I looked through it, something was amiss. There was a giant, perfectly captured thumbprint right in the middle of an internal lens. Boy was I steamed!

So, even Zeiss can produce something that isn't perfect. But they do make great glass, sometimes they'll even put their thumbprint on it.

[Evin Grant]

I like the RPPs quite a lot and even had possession of a set for a few months when they first came out. I shot a few projects on them and generally consider the glass excellent. For me the biggest drawback was weight, I have back issues and the three wide RPPs were just too heavy for me to work with comfortably. Also I think with the addition of the marks by Duclos the RPPs become an even more appealing proposition.

Here is a commercial I shot on them for Fox... (Obviously not the films footage)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDVliiqk82Y

[Rob Ruffo]

I believe Girlfriend Experience was also shot with anamorphics, but I don't know what kind. On imdb it just says Red camera and lenses, so maybe there are some RPP shots in there somewhere? The movie looked great.

Girlfriend Experience was the single ugliest film I have ever seen, in my opinion. It actually made us postpone buying a Red (no really, it made me worry, and we put it off). I'm glad we changed our minds, but I couldn't even sit through that movie because of how unappealing its look was to me. To each their own I guess.

That said, RRPs are good lenses - they have a look, and all brands do. I think there is no "right answer" for lenses - as all discussed here are technically quite excellent, but they all yield different feels. I for one love vintage glass, shot with geared heads for an old Hollywood feel. I also love the hyper-real DOF falloff of some Canons. But... Taste is a really tricky thing.

[Jannard]

One Ché was shot on Panavision anamorphics and the other on RED 18-50mm zooms. Soderbergh has used the 18-50mm and 17-50mm quite a bit. The news on the RPPs hasn't gotten out very well to the big budget guys... but lots of projects are using them.

Jim

[Gunleik Groven]

What is this Big Blue event you mention Gunleik?



BigBlue...
Up to a point a PC was an IBM. In computer history, it lasted for ages, and I think they had this slogan up until -94 at least.

"Nobody ever got fired for buying an IBM" is actually used as the quint-essential example of FUD-marketing on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty_and_doubt

Back on topic:
Focus marks and weight of the wider three, are all relevant reasons. The three longer are heavier than MP's.
They don't scream "handheld best solution of the year", either.

But optically I really like them a lot.
And for single-man operation (without an AC) the markings are less of an issue. But they fall a bit in between markets:

A bit on the heavy side for the one-man-handheld-band.
lacking precision of marks for the full fledged operations.

I see that.
But there are compromises to all choises. Shot Supers or Standards or Optimo HR or Masters or Ultras or... something else... lately.

The Ultras are arguably a very good middle-ground for all the technical issues, but you can get a ful set of RPPs for the price of a 185...

Question I think most people don't really ask themselves in the right way before deciding on glass is:

What are my core needs?

And then go:

Sure, but be realistic...

The RPPs would gain a lot of more traction...

Yup... and if RED decided to re-mark them with higher precission without rising the price. Which won't happen, as they are already a very good deal.

And I have to agree with Stephen Williams...

We have one 18-50 laying around at one place I work.

The fact that it exists and that the photographers have tested it, makes RPP a non-option.

The 18-50 was the right thing for the right audience.
Their individual quality is very different, though. I have seen good, and I have seen a few really bad. Anyways, it is not what the film-guys expected, but what a lot of early adopters brought to the production table early on.

Used by a pragmatic user like BigLu. It is pure gold.

Used like an Angie by someone expecting Zeiss/Angie performance, it simply sucks.

This is a huge big house - in our scale - currently mounting 4 drama productions in parallell. Less good glass than the RPPs are chosen because of the 18-50...

I am not saying I agree on the choice, but it is a simple fact...

[Costelloe Michael]

I own a set of RPP's and use them all the time for local, regional and national commercials. For me they come somewhere between the 'qualities' of Cooke's, (S4's and later), and Ultras. This is a response to the image. I also have a set of SII/SIII and 20-100 and 25-250, I use these if I want to go softer, more old school.

When I shoot international product for larger corporate bodies with large agency/client/director input I invariably rent a set of Ultras whether it be 35mm, Red, Alexa or whatever. It is just easier that way to deal with expectation. I recently put up three similar focal length lenses on a three camera shoot for Pepsi with Carlos Tevez from these manufacturers for an Argentinian director who 'knew' his lenses. We put RPP, Cooke S4 and an Ultra on a wide shot of the stage area, each on a different camera and available to compare in real time, and let him choose his lens just by looking at the image. Let's just say he had a very hard time telling the difference but ultimately decided the S4 was too soft, (He thought this was the RPP!), and liked the contrast in the Ultra. So we shot with the ultras.

When I show people the variety of work I have done over the past 3 years of being a red owner, (I still shoot 35mm, Alexa more recently and some 5Dii/7D,) people have some trouble deciding what format they were shot on and this becomes the major topic of conversation. Red lenses have got a poor reputation from the early days of the 18-50mm. Guys used to Primo's and Zeiss alternatives were never going to accept the telescoping front end and sometimes variable build quality, for them this was unnaceptable. However, it enabled low budget guys to get images without having to hire in. But it has coloured the impression of Red glass for a number of industry professionals used to more expensive alternatives at that time and resisting the digital revolution. They are now shooting happily with Canon 5D's and off the shelf still's zooms.

[Lee Saxon]

there is a reason why zeiss, cooke, and angenieux glass is the mainstay in the industry..

Same reason people will pay Arri $50k for 1080p @ 60fps while a 5K @ 120fps cam costs half that?

[Gunleik Groven]

(...) They are now shooting happily with Canon 5D's and off the shelf still's zooms.

I, too find this slightly funny, as it is the exact same guys who do not want to touch RPPs...

[Bérenger Brillante]

it is the exact same guys who do not want to touch RPPs...

Same here, but 50% of my client use RPP's after seeing my showreel and compared the canon lenses marks and barrels with RPP.

The other half usually take Superspeeds. But budgetwise (i mostly do videoclip and web commercial), they go to cheaper rental house and get some mkI or II.. shot wide open, with high CA, and bad collimation which is worse... :violin:

The only reason I really find valid is the weight. 18-25-35 Rpp are darn heavy.
A good AC, even if it's not as practical, can deal with less focus marks. At least, I do.

Though I own RPP's, I find myself using Masters and S4 anytime I can.

[Costelloe Michael]

I, too find this slightly funny, as it is the exact same guys who do not want to touch RPPs...

Gunleik,

I shot with a director who poo-poo'd RPP's on a Red shoot but insisted that my CP2's were not a necessary expense on a 5Dii shoot as the Zooms were 'good enough'! Go figure?

[KETCH ROSSi]

I said this so many times I can't remember, The RPP's are some of the Sharpest Cine Glass out there, and now side by side with
our MP's I see it, I always considered the MP's the Sharpest and absolute bets Glass in the Industry, bar none, still do, and
when seen both images form them and the RPP's I'm very happy I have the RPP's as well ;)

They are heavy, yes, they are big, yes, but do they really, really Sharp and KICK A%$#@, YES!!

Ever since we got them back form the collaboration with Duclos, to add Focus Markings this lenses are now so SWEET ;)

Those that do not use them, is either out of a Big ego, or do to size, I do understand those that go UP for size and weight, I
totally understand those that go MP's for the highest quality but most importantly Speed, I just don't understand those that
have the need to save money and no problem in using heavy and large glass, but absolutely choose not to shoot RPP because
they are not Arri or Cooke.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Costelloe, that is understandable. Argentine soccer players have a blinding aura of unnatural soccer skill which can play tricks on your eyes if they are too close. ;)

Ketch, would you please post a quick iPhone picture of the Duclos focus marks? Don't worry if you can't, I just haven't seen them and I am curious to see how the scales look after the botox.

[Pietro Impagliazzo]

One Ché was shot on Panavision anamorphics and the other on RED 18-50mm zooms. Soderbergh has used the 18-50mm and 17-50mm quite a bit. The news on the RPPs hasn't gotten out very well to the big budget guys... but lots of projects are using them.

Jim

Did RED improve the focus markings or is it being done by third parties?

[Jarred Land]

Did RED improve the focus markings or is it being done by third parties?

Duclos is adding focus marks to those that want more marks.

[Adrian T.]

Ketch, would you please post a quick iPhone picture of the Duclos focus marks? Don't worry if you can't, I just haven't seen them and I am curious to see how the scales look after the botox.

This was the thread he posted pictures in:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=53046

Unfortunately they're gone now, probably because he moved the hosting...
Would be cool if you could fix these images, Ketch.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Ketch, would you please post a quick iPhone picture of the Duclos focus marks? Don't worry if you can't, I just haven't seen them and I am curious to see how the scales look after the botox.


Duclos is adding focus marks to those that want more marks.



Unfortunately they're gone now, probably because he moved the hosting...
Would be cool if you could fix these images, Ketch.

Yes working hard on that Adrian, current server crashed, and changed to a new one, but still not in off, went with Amazon,
but now working on a completely new rebuild, and our own Server ;)


as Jarred said, I did too several times some were around here ;), Duclos and I collaborate in the amount of Focus Markings to be
added, and one of our RPP sets was the first to go in for this, Love the results and so do the DP's that have try them out so far.

Price is $2,400 for the full Set of 6 RP's, so about $400 per lens, not a Bad deal at all if you ask me, just contact Duclos,
as time frame can vary greatly depending on how Slammed they are ;)

Here you go Robert, few quickies of the 18, 25, 35mm

http://ketchrossistudios.com/site/images/stories/uploads/RPP.JPG

http://ketchrossistudios.com/site/images/stories/uploads/RPP2.JPG

http://ketchrossistudios.com/site/images/stories/uploads/RPP3.JPG

[Roberto Lequeux]

Thanks Ketch! You rock.

[KETCH ROSSi]

Thanks Ketch! You rock.

Most welcome Robert ;)

[Tony Lorentzen]

Ketch - those lenses look totally unused?

[KETCH ROSSi]

Ketch - those lenses look totally unused?

He he, so does all of our Gear ;)

[AnthonyFlores]

He he, so does all of our Gear ;)

Yah that's one thing I really appreciate about Ketch ... he takes such impeccable care of his gear, even when it's used a lot it still looks brand new :)

[James McLellan]

Thanks to everyone for all the feedback. In the span of this thread I've gone back and forth three times. Lots of great perspectives here. I feel better suited to make up my mind now. Thanks.

[Tim Naylor]

I agree with everything you say Zak ... I definitely believe there are distinct looks many DP's are going for with the high-end glass (as well as markings/ergonomics) .... and like you I tend to prefer glass with a bit more character (like Cooke ... or even somewhere in between such as Leica or Angie) ... versus super-sharp but sterile. That said, I do love a lot of what I've seen with MP's and UP's .... just not always my first choice. To me Leica/Panavision is probably ideal -- still super sharp but not quite as cool as Zeiss.

Anyway, my point about "snob appeal" was this -- there are many DP's where, even if you showed them extensive tests/charts/etc of the RPP's performing as well or ever better than these other legendary brands -- they simply would not be open to using them because it's not a prestigious lens name. I'm not saying RPP's ARE better, I'm just saying that even if they were it wouldn't matter to many DP's. Of course not all DP's are like that ... but it IS one of the reasons why RPP's are a bit more challenging to rent out IMHO. As a lens brand, Red still does not have much cache.

For instance ... imagine telling someone in the industry (or even here on the Red forum!) ... "hey I'm shooting a feature on an Epic S35 with Panavision Primos ..." -- they will be like "Whoa!" And if you substitute RPP's in there for the Primos the reaction will still be good ... but not quite be the same :)

Anthony

P.S. -- As an aside, I've appreciated how supportive Red is of other glass companies, never disparaging anyone and never speaking competitively or negatively about another lens brand being used ... that is really awesome to me.

I think you're selling DP's way short. I don't know a single DP who would ignore RPP's because of snob/brand appeal. DP's get their jobs and reputation for exploiting every advantage they can get. As perhaps one of the more practical people on set, most DP's, are quite objective when it comes to gear. If there's a better lens, DP's will jump on it. The fact that loads of fully budgeted commercials are shot on RED when we often have a choice of a more expensive F35 or Alexa says DP's go to whatever product that delivers what they need. In NYC, once the workflow was smoothed out, RED became popular, snob appeal be damned, and even more so since MX. It simply does things other cameras can't. RPP's don't do things other lenses can.

They don't fly off the shelf because after a certain budget, production can afford better lenses. And at the same budget, you're up against superspeeds, panchros and standards, lenses many DP's (including me) prefer. It's that simple. I shot my last feature on RPP's because my first choice, Masters, were out of the budget. Since we were shooting 4.5k, RPP's were the next logical choice. If Superspeeds didn't vignette at 4.5k on an 18mm, I would've taken them over the RPP's in a heartbeat. All told the RPP's were great for virtually every shot. And the footage was the best I've ever shot (see link: http://www.timnaylor.com/vid_martin.html). Their weaknesses, tight lens markings on the upper range, funny flare artifacts did rear their head but we dealt with it.

Now that the new Panchros are getting around town, and cameras are getting more sensitive, it'll be interesting as to how this will effect the RPP rental market. With what we can do in color correction, warm or cool characteristics of a lens mean little to me. Mechanics, speed, weight, focus roll off, consistent color on flaring, bokeh, organic flare artifacts, and to some degree, sharpness are my priorities. The lenses character if you will. For the sub 30 grand lens set that can cover 5k, RPP's have no competition.

[Adrian Correia]

Holy cow Tim that footage is gorgeous!

[Shane Betts]

Yeah. Nice work Tim. I love the natural grade.

[Gunleik Groven]

Despite your position, that's the kind of footy that will sell RPPs.

Curious about your position on RPPs vs Superspeeds...

Haven't measured either, but I'd have thought the RPPs were sharper (not that Sharper equal Better by any means...)

[Ramesh Jai]

I've owned RPPs since last year and they're very good lenses. I prefer their look over superspeeds. They are very close to MPs. And honestly the warm or contrasty look that people keep talking about can easily be achieved in post. Yes. They are heavy. But damn, do they look impressive when the client is on set. Waiting for 14mm, 135mm and 180mm from Red. I'll buy them all. Without a doubt RPPs are a very good deal.


@ Tim Naylor- wow! Nice footage!

[Tim Naylor]

Thanks for the kind words.

Re: my position on Speeds vs RPP's, I think much depends on what your priorities are. Aside from the footage I cited, I tend to do a lot of shooting into light sources and I really love the effect I get from speeds in that regard. Some DP's hate it. Re: sharpness, I think the RPP's are technically sharper, but at a certain point for me, most lenses get more than sharp enough. I find myself using classic softs with RPP's alot especially on high detail wides. The 1.4 on speeds, I find a bit useless (except moments of desperation) as the lens falls apart below a 2.0. In a practical sense, the stop is the same as RPP's.

Weight is a big deal as so many clients love the camera on the shoulder and the speeds are less than half the weight. Re: Focus mechanics, I prefer Mk 3's as the focal draw seems to me and my AC's more progressive not involving such a quick snap that RPP's entail sometimes.

If I'm shooting 4.5k I find the Speeds definitely show edge fall off against flat bright backgrounds with the wide lenses. The RPP's are far better here.

And then there's the subjective part that no chart tests will ever reveal. I like the look of Speeds better, primarily in terms of the way the back ground focus falls off, flares and blurs. I find them more three dimensional. Again this becomes a matter of taste and can be argued till Lord knows when. So for now, the way I usually shoot, Speeds (and Cookes) are more my choice. But for other shoots, like the footage I did in China, the only lens that would've bested the RPP's cost three times the day rate. Also, I feel the RPP's character was an excellent match for the contrasts and depths we were shooting. We were shooting 2:35 and that format really draws attention to edge to edge fall off. And in this case, I would've preferred the RPP's even over UP's. I think many DP's have become so accustomed to creating a look on set that they may miss the advantages of having "less character" in a lens with today's grading tech.

The lenses I'm really excited to try next are the new Panchros.

Regarding lens tests, I find it so hard to glean anything useful from rez, chart, etc tests. I like seeing A/B tests that simulate real world situations and set ups. You get to see how the lens performs from a practical and aesthetic standpoint.

[Tim Naylor]

Yeah. Nice work Tim. I love the natural grade.

That was my attempt on Red Alert with a little love in FCP. Still can't figure out Cine X for the life of me. If anyone has a good tutorial please direct me to it.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Thank you for that post Tim. You put a lot in perspective.

[Tim Naylor]

At the end of the day if you need great edge to edge (wide screen comp) and can doll up the rest in post, RPP's are a strong bet. I'll probably end up using them more because I find myself doing more and more 2:35 work. To give you an idea where I'm coming from though, Super Baltars are some of my all time faves.

[Adrian Correia]

That was my attempt on Red Alert with a little love in FCP. Still can't figure out Cine X for the life of me. If anyone has a good tutorial please direct me to it.

+1

I would definitely appreciate a more thorough tutorial.

[paul engstrom]

make sure you have the most recent version of cine x installed. each version works better and is more intuitive. also, the most recent version has instructional pdf.

[C.H.Haskell]

Tim sums it up pretty well. RPPs seem to suit the owner/operator, some glass just needs more love in post to get that "character" your looking for. Tim and others here have provided some steller examples. I plan on trying out the Panchros on my next shoot, curious if they really are the "Mini S4s" that they are rumored to be. I am not pixel peeper, or a charts guy...I need light, flesh, real life to test glass. We should organize a test Tim, on the EPIC perhaps. ;) Cheers.

Clay

[Shawn Nelson]

wow Tim! really incredible footage.

I absolutely love my set of RPPs. One of the big reasons I bought it is that they are going to really sing on the Epic. 5k will be awesome on them. The other prime sets on the market may not fare so well.

[Robert Jackson]

P.S. -- As an aside, I've appreciated how supportive Red is of other glass companies, never disparaging anyone and never speaking competitively or negatively about another lens brand being used ... that is really awesome to me.

When RED releases their 24mm x 36mm sensor they won't have to say anything disparaging. Just, "Well, those lenses won't cover our sensor diagonal." :thumbup1:

[Tim Naylor]

When RED releases their 24mm x 36mm sensor they won't have to say anything disparaging. Just, "Well, those lenses won't cover our sensor diagonal." :thumbup1:

Why wouldn't they be supportive of other glass? It's not exceptional behavior, just common sense. Who'd buy your camera if you didn't?

[Tim Naylor]

Tim sums it up pretty well. RPPs seem to suit the owner/operator, some glass just needs more love in post to get that "character" your looking for. Tim and others here have provided some steller examples. I plan on trying out the Panchros on my next shoot, curious if they really are the "Mini S4s" that they are rumored to be. I am not pixel peeper, or a charts guy...I need light, flesh, real life to test glass. We should organize a test Tim, on the EPIC perhaps. ;) Cheers.

Clay

A buddy of mine just picked up a set of Panchros. I think I'll use them on a spot I'm directing/shooting on the 26th. Our budget's to skimpy for S4's (and probably a decent lunch) and the Cooke look is perfect for the spot. But I'd love to do some "stress" tests. I'm sure he'd be all about seeing what these lenses can do. Give me shout. I'm in Brooklyn. We just re-located to the Eastern FX building.

[Jason Hilton]

Souvenirs was shot on Red Pro Primes: http://souvenirsthemovie.com

[Shawn Nelson]

I think RPPs need to be given a whole new look over in light of Epic

[Sven Seynaeve]

Wow Tim, incredibly good looking footage. This seems actually to be the best I've ever seen personally from the RPP's.

[Ned Wilson]

Too bad he got banned. I definitely have some questions about edge to edge fall off. Has anyone here tested the fall off on RPP's at 5k. I'm sure they're excellent but wondering how it measures up on a solid white or grey background.

[Roberto Lequeux]

Too bad he got banned.

What happened?

[AnthonyFlores]

What happened?

He started some BS (now deleted) thread about how the Epic was poorly designed and not AC friendly. It was based on a report that "one of his AC's" worked with OffHollywood and reported a bunch of issues that make the camera hard to work with on set.

He kinda got warned by Jim, but just went on and on and on ranting and arguing, it was really bad taste and definitely the kind of thing that creates FUD/myths about Red, especially when it's well known that there are imminent modules that will greatly improve certain functions on set.

(Besides the fact everyone else -- including the AC's that work with Dino and others -- have reported that actually the camera is amazingly well-designed and a dream to work with. So it's a little fishy as well.)

That's pretty much it. He was a talented guy, sad to see him go, but a clear lesson that Reduser is not a place to create and spread unfounded rumors and FUD about Red products that are not even 100% finished.

Anthony

[Roberto Lequeux]

Weird... I didn't even bother checking that thread since I saw people quickly brought up the I/O module to his attention, like in the first 4 posts. I figured the thread was wrapped up. I would like to have him back; I am sure that by now he realized the AC's comments were premature, and misinformed. Don't forget Epic with a Pro I/O and additional Battery module will still be a bit smaller and lighter than Red One. And that now you'll also get proper XLR out and new video connections.

[AnthonyFlores]

Weird... I didn't even bother checking that thread since I saw people quickly brought up the I/O module to his attention, like in the first 4 posts. I figured the thread was wrapped up. I would like to have him back; I am sure that by now he realized the AC's comments were premature, and misinformed. Don't forget Epic with a Pro I/O and additional Battery module will still be a bit smaller and lighter than Red One. And that now you'll also get proper XLR out and new video connections.

Of course man, it's amazing the modular flexibility of the system. I enjoyed some of his posts as well ... but what I think was especially problematic was the way he took supposed BTS information and then turned it against Red by starting a thread in a public forum.

Anyway, it's not really my business and there are so many positive things to focus on -- Epic, Modules, Leicas (!), and other things -- I'm really thrilled about all that's happening.

And back to the OP, seeing what's being done on RPP's by Tim, Ketch and others makes me strongly consider a set for my Epic while I'm waiting for the Leicas in 2012 :coolgleamA:

Anthony

[Ned Wilson]

He started some BS (now deleted) thread about how the Epic was poorly designed and not AC friendly. It was based on a report that "one of his AC's" worked with OffHollywood and reported a bunch of issues that make the camera hard to work with on set.

He kinda got warned by Jim, but just went on and on and on ranting and arguing, it was really bad taste and definitely the kind of thing that creates FUD/myths about Red, especially when it's well known that there are imminent modules that will greatly improve certain functions on set.

(Besides the fact everyone else -- including the AC's that work with Dino and others -- have reported that actually the camera is amazingly well-designed and a dream to work with. So it's a little fishy as well.)

That's pretty much it. He was a talented guy, sad to see him go, but a clear lesson that Reduser is not a place to create and spread unfounded rumors and FUD about Red products that are not even 100% finished.

Anthony

I followed that thread too until it got pulled. I wish I could find it as it did answer some questions that I have a hard time finding answers, but now I'm not sure whether it's appropriate or safe to ask.