Thread: FF5 to test in Orange County

Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1 FF5 to test in Orange County 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    433
    Anyone with a Red + Red zoom, or any larger diameter cine glass, willing to meet up to test the FF5? I've also got a MB20, 2060, and a bunch of other toys, if there is anything specific you want to test out.

    Thanks
    Dave Winters
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    Digital FX Greg M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,901
    David,
    What exactly do you want to test? The FF5 is not the best solution here, stick w/ FF4.

    The FF5 is better suited for video lenses.

    digitalfx.tv

    The RGBlog- Ramblings about Cameras, VFX, etc.
    Twitter

    Red One #83
    Epic-M #98 and #240
    Epic-X #83 and #116
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #3  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    433
    Now that I read my post I see it wasn't all that clear. I have an FF5 which I would like to test with the Red package and the Red short zoom, as well as any other large diameter cine zooms & primes. I see, from your posts, that the arm may be too long for Ultra and Master primes. However, I'd like to test first hand as I've got the new, very large, Arri cine gear which is supposed to eliminate the clearance and gear ratio issues.

    I understand the FF5 is not the optimum model for use with PL cine optics, it just happens to be something we already own, and was originally purchased for use on 2/3" HD gear.

    This FF5 has gone out on jobs with a F900, Pro35, and Superspeeds. The first job was a nightmare as the large gear wasn't available at the time (wrong gear ratio, too many rotations). With the large gear it has worked reasonably well, with Superspeeds at least.

    So, if anyone in the area wants to test out the FF5 & MB20 (model 1), possibly we will both benefit. I'm in Costa Mesa, but LA is no problem.

    Thanks
    Dave Winters
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #4  
    David,

    I asked ARRI in Burbank about the limitations of using an FF-5HD with cine lenses. I was referred to Jim Elias at ARRI in Germany. Jim, I was told, was the designer of the FF-5. The following is the email correspondence between Jim and I:

    __________________________________________________ _______________

    ORIGINAL MESSAGE:

    Mr. Elias

    I was referred to you by the ARRI office in Burbank, CA. I am trying
    to understand the limitations of using the FF-5HD Follow Focus with cine
    lenses. I have heard rumors that the FF-5HD may not work with some cine
    lenses. I understand that it has a longer gear arm and a different
    transmission ratio that the FF-4 but it seems to me that these could be
    compensated for by using the appropriate gear. I need to know if the FF-5HD
    is suitable for use with ARRI Ultra Primes, Master Primes and Cooke S-4/i
    lenses. Also, if so, which gear should I use with these lenses to
    approximate the performance (gear ratio) of the FF-4.

    Thank You

    REPLY:

    Dear Mr. Phelps,

    There are two main issues when using the FF-5 with cine lenses:

    Firstly, the main bridge housing of the FF-4 is relieved in the rear to
    allow space for a film-camera mirror shutter housing. The FF-5 does not
    have this relief. This was to allow internal space for the FF-5
    lightweight-support snap-on mechanics; the FF-4 has snap-on studio rod
    bridges, but has a standard slide-on interface where lightweight support
    rods are concerned. As such, the FF-5 may need to sit farther forward than
    the FF-4, which can be disadvantageous when working with short-body lenses
    such as the Ultra Primes in conjunction with a matte box. So the FF-5 has a
    more elegant mounting system, but the FF-4 is better adapted to tight
    spacing on a 35mm film camera. If the camera in question has no mirror
    shutter housing, the issue is of course irrelevant.

    Regarding the longer arm and larger gear, we do make a 64-tooth driver
    (order no. K2.65102.0) with which the FF-5 will be about as "fast" as the
    FF-4 with its standard 35-tooth driver. The main problem that occurs here
    is that the longer arm, especially in conjunction with the larger gear, is
    often difficult or impossible to place under the lens -- which is where most
    assistants want to place it so that they have free line-of-sight to the lens
    markings. With the FF-5 and a large-barrel cine lens, the gear mesh often
    has to be on the side of the lens, which then blocks line-of-sight to the
    witness mark.

    That said, I have heard relatively often concerning users who prefer the
    FF-5 for cine lenses, probably due to the lower gearing allowing for more
    precise small adjustments.

    With best regards,

    Jim Elias
    ARRI

    REPLY:

    Thank You very much for the quick reply. I appreciate your thorough
    response. I think you answered most of my questions and it sounds as
    though the FF-5 will work fine for my intended use.

    I also have a 43 tooth/.8 pitch driver gear which I understand will
    work fine for small barrel lenses. From what you are telling me, it
    sounds like I will aslo want the 64-tooth driver gear for use with
    larger lenses. Is this correct?

    Thanks Tracy


    REPLY:

    Hello Tracy,

    I think you probably will. It all depends on the application. When I was
    working as a focus puller, I did a lot of close-up dialogue and thus was
    working a relatively short area of the scale. This meant that keeping the
    gear ratio low was advantageous regardless of the physical lens size. But
    for fast racks you may need the bigger gear even for smaller lenses.

    Regards,

    Jim

    __________________________________________________ _______________


    I also did a quick fit test with my FF-5 on a RED with the 18-50CF Zoom and it worked fine. This was not a full up test by any means but there were no physical fit problems.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #5  
    Digital FX Greg M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    3,901
    These are the very problems I encountered.
    1. The FF5 sat too far forward to use an Arri clip-on matte box. Could not attach a matte box.
    2. The arm is long and hits the lens too high, which totally blocks the view of the lens...in some cases it wouldnt even reach the focus gear because of the angle.
    3. placing gear under lens is impossible.

    BTW- my lenses are Ultra Primes

    digitalfx.tv

    The RGBlog- Ramblings about Cameras, VFX, etc.
    Twitter

    Red One #83
    Epic-M #98 and #240
    Epic-X #83 and #116
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #6  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    433
    Glen, Digital FX,

    Thanks for the information, extremely helpful. I'm working to create a list of lens which are not compatible, so when I request a package for a job I'll know when I can use my co's gear vs sub-renting bits.

    On the FF5, with the 64 tooth gear mounted on the front side of the arm, which prevents the arm from swinging under the lens. Closest position to the MB20 bellows is 3/4 inch. Yes, it is unfortunate, arm to the side vs under the lens, blocks a view of the lens marks. See image 1.

    Maximum gear position swung away from optical center is approx 2 & 3/4 inch. Or, 3 & 7/8" using the longer FF knob. See image 2.

    Next phase for me is to order the 19mm adapter for the FF5, then do some tests to see what lens will work with the gear arm swung under. I eyeballed on the max arm position. See image 3.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #7  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Orange County, CA
    Posts
    433
    One more photo. Gear diameter comparison, smaller gear for FF4, big one FF5.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts