Click here to go to the first RED TEAM post in this thread.   Thread: Phil's Cine RF Mount & Adapter F.A.Q.

Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 70
  1. #31  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    341
    Phil, How do the RF prime offerings compare to the Otus line? Since you have experience with the Otai. How do the RF Zoom offerings compare image wise to the Otuses?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #32  
    Senior Member Alain M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Miami, FL || Maracay-Venezuela
    Posts
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    I've been summoned :)



    Jarred is right. I haven't just been testing and experimenting with adapters since Komodo's announcement, but this started when the RF-Mount was announced. I'm a lens nut as well as a camera nut. Some of this advice has already been used in the field prior to Komodo's official release, which you've seen here and there via bts pics.

    Much like RED's initial offerings of multiple mounts and subsequent use of a adapters as well, Komodo inspires a great deal of creativity and flexibility with it's compact and forward thinking mount RF-Mount.

    But RF is new. So new, some don't even know about it in the world of motion picture production.

    Let's jump in.


    What is the RF-Mount?
    RF-Mount Canon's new shorter flange depth electronic mount introduced in 2018. Similar to the wildly popular and successful EF Mount, but with a flange focal distance of 20mm rather than the EF's 44mm FFD. And that means you can adapt nearly 70 of the about 85 mount standards to it. That's a lot of glass. It's a locking bayonet with a button release. If you've ever used an EF Mount, this will be super familiar to you.


    So what can you easily adapt to Komodo?
    - RF>Canon-EF (that's a given and Canon's electronic adapter is great and they make 3 of them)
    - RF>Leica-M (Simple mechanical as well as helicoid for closer focus)
    - RF>PL Mount
    - Anything you can adapt to EF Mount like Leica-R, Olympus OM, Nikon F, Canon FD/FL, etc. The sky if virtually the limit.


    What can't you adapt to RF?
    Focusing on the modern stuff, notably you can't mount:
    - Nikon Z-Mount
    - Sony E-Mount or FZ-Mount
    - Fujifilm's X-Mount

    Those all have shorter flange focal distances, so no go. Physically impossible and honestly you'd need new electronics anyways.


    Who is currently or will be making RF>PL Mount Adapters?
    - Metabones
    - KipperTie
    - Wooden Camera
    - Fotodiox
    - MTF Services
    - Vocas
    - C7 Adapters (ciecio7)
    - and others


    A special word on L-Mount and Unreleased Lenses
    Sigma, Panasonic, and Leica have formed the L-Mount Alliance in 2018. Something must have been in the air that year ;) I've spoken to Sigma as well as various newer and older manufacturers about RF Mount support. I personally would expect some of the L-Mount glass to come to RF-Mount as it in some cases wouldn't require re-inventing the wheel but rather swapping mounts and possibly electronics. Totally exploiting my relationship with a few lens manufacturers as well, expect much more RF glass incoming from the usual and unusual sources. Laowa for instance has some nice tiny wide angle primes coming.


    Some Canon RF-Mount Notes
    RF-Mount is the newest in Canon's lineup and it took them a few decades to flesh out their massive EF lens line-up to where it is today. However, they are focused and releasing some pretty kick butt newer lenses like very high speed zooms and extremely modern designed high speed primes, an avalanche more incoming. Also their new focusing motor system in RF glass is pretty rad for autofocus, still and motion. I suspect actually faster, more accurate, and more robust than anything EF actually.

    One thing Canon introduced with the RF-Mount is the new concept of a Control Ring. Really cool to see something new in the mix. For RF-Mount native lenses, this ring exists on the lens itself. On their cameras you can map it to do certain things. They also make an RF>EF Control Ring Adapter. I mention this because we don't know yet how RED and Komodo plans to tackle this, but the imagination runs wild. Iris control? ISO control? User configurable? Tune-able AF speed? We just don't know. Too early. But it does possibly give you a potential shortcut key/ring, which is cool.


    Behind the Lens Neutral Density (ND)
    One of the exciting things about this RF-Mount is we have some space to work with. Which allows for behind the lens ND and Variable ND solutions. Canon makes an official Variable ND, but there are others as well. Though I have their RF>VND EF adapter here, I prefer physical NDs as they don't have many of the pitfalls of VNDs. But if you are looking to save dough and work fast, these work.

    Notably and likely very useful will be KipperTie's upcoming Revolva-RF>PL which much like the DSMC2/DSMC model uses a mechanical rotating cartridge system with 4X physical ND windows that you can configure yourself. John's nearly done with the prototype as of March 2020. Expect it to drop likely around Komodo time. I think he is also working on a Revolva RF>EF, but I don't recall. Certainly possible.

    There's also more ND related stuff incoming. 2020/2021 will be fun on this front.


    Support Your Glass
    The RF-Mount is pretty robust, but it's still a thin mount in comparison to say PL. I personally would recommend lens support for glass 5-6lbs and heavier and certainly longer lenses that might even fall under the weight class I just mentioned.

    Many of the PL-Mount Adapters include a support foot. That is there for you to mount your base plate to for a very rigid and strong little package.

    Many lenses in the modern era also have a support foot for a rod support or plate support.

    In some instances, like long super-telephoto lenses, you might just be supporting the lens and letting Komodo dangle, that will work. I like to imagine a tiny Komodo with legs wiggling in the air :)


    Small or Big
    Komodo expresses itself as a mini-cinema camera, mini-utility camera, tiny-block cam, or whatever you want to call it. One of it's biggest strengths is just how small you can have a shooting package. I'm talking < 4lbs in some cases. Which is insane. But get creative. Use the big glass too. Use whatever it takes to make the shot. Komodo allows for that sort of mindset. Much like RED has displayed with it's modular compact cinema cameras, you can always make a small camera bigger, but you can nearly never make a large camera smaller.


    Komodo Specific Specs
    RED Komodo 6K is an S35+ sensor, which means it's format size is a bit larger than Super 35mm in width, but is actually within the Super 35mm 4-perf image circle spec.

    Here is a comparison of Komodo 6K FF and Kodak Super 35mm 3-perf

    And here is a comparison of Komodo 6K FF and Kodak Super 35mm 4-perf

    That means you can use VistaVision, Large Format, FF35, 135 Still lenses as well as Super 35mm and APS-C lenses on Komodo. And likely very good coverage on older Academy 35mm lenses. Especially at 6K HD.


    Komodo 6K RF + Speedboosters
    Yes Speedboosters (focal reducers) will work with RED Komodo 6K. Metabones has been sort of dominating here, but expect others to join in shortly. At the moment RF>EF Speedboosters are available. I'm expecting an RF>PL Speedbooster later this year.

    For those new to these things. In the case of a FF35<APS-C Focal Reducer/Speedbooster you traditionally have about 0.71X reduction of the FF35 image to the APS-C image plane, giving Komodo's 27.03mm wide sensor an effectove Field of View of a 38mm wide sensor with the added benefit of gaining about 1 stop of light. So your T2.8 lens becomes effectively as sensitive as a T2.

    Pros and cons to all of that. You are still adding more optics into the mix, and though mostly brag about higher center MTF, you might see enhanced distortion, CA, artifacts, etc. I still personally like to stop down a stop when using Speedboosters, pretty much my advice for all optical adapters. They are incredibly useful, but they don't walk on water. And remember if your lens tops out at T16 and you've boosted it, you now have a minimum aperture of T8. Plan for ND accordingly.


    Feel Free to Ask
    Komodo has brought a lot of new peeps to this corner of the internet and hopefully I can be an informative resource for you. I am in the rare position of owning, used, or have tested nearly lens ever made in the last 100+ years. If you have a question, I can likely answer it. I'm super excited about what this new RF-Mount brings to keeping Komodo small but also empowering the more common cinema-minded mount standards to be more flexible than ever.
    Thanks for sharing bro... Excellent summary
    Alain Maiki
    Director || Filmmaker
    epicinmotion.com
    alainmaiki.com
    IMDb Alain Maiki
    RED Helium 8K S35
    Hydrogen ONE
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #33  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    The likelihood of Z-Mount support I would say is very, very low and equally if not lower for E-mount.
    I agree, just mentioning my own caviar dreams...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4.   This is the last RED TEAM post in this thread.   #34  
    Fire Chief Jarred Land's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    10,596
    phil you are awesome.. thanks a ton.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #35  
    Thanks for your work on this Phil, super helpful as always.

    What ever happened to that lens circle database that you and Matt Duclos were working on? Im currently in the process of choosing EF glass to mount on both GFX and RF-mount adapters for a project. Itd be great to know what glass out there has a big enough image circle for these bigger sensors
    Trevor Meier :: Story & Image
    http://trevormeier.com/
    http://storyspark.ca/

    GEMINI #09
    Epic-W, Raven, Epic Dragon
    Proud owner since Red One #182
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #36  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,664
    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Meier View Post
    Thanks for your work on this Phil, super helpful as always.

    What ever happened to that lens circle database that you and Matt Duclos were working on? I’m currently in the process of choosing EF glass to mount on both GFX and RF-mount adapters for a project. It’d be great to know what glass out there has a big enough image circle for these bigger sensors
    Have you seen this thread https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1496482
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #37  
    Moderator Phil Holland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    11,672
    Quote Originally Posted by Jarred Land View Post
    phil you are awesome.. thanks a ton.
    Anytime. It's actually been fun tinkering with potential here using this mount.


    Quote Originally Posted by Trevor Meier View Post
    Thanks for your work on this Phil, super helpful as always.

    What ever happened to that lens circle database that you and Matt Duclos were working on? I’m currently in the process of choosing EF glass to mount on both GFX and RF-mount adapters for a project. It’d be great to know what glass out there has a big enough image circle for these bigger sensors
    Woof. Long, long topic to discuss. But I'll keep it short. Ages ago, when MX and eventually Dragon ruled the land I started doing a lot and I mean a lot of lens coverage tests. There's a lot of ways to go about this including the use of larger format digital sensors, projectors, and *gasp* even a scanner. When Dragon was new this resulted in a lens coverage "guide" circa 2013:

    https://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ge-Information

    Which led to when VV being new I even created a tool:
    http://phfx.com/tools/lensData/

    Outside of RED, there was also a host of Alexa 65 coverage tests I had to do for a studio.

    Fast forward to a modern era with a rather large explosion of optics, mounts, format sizes, and cameras in general it became difficult to re-craft a tool as the most important thing became pretty damn apparent to me prior to all the "larger format sensors".

    You need to test the glass on the sensor and format itself for a variety of reasons. In the past you've seen me write about sensor smear, which has much to do with the micro-lens design on the sensor itself. Famously Leica-M lenses, particularly wides, sometimes created an off-putting magenta vignette and/ora smeared detail due to this. Also some uniqueness on lens fitting, each camera system's unique optical path, interchangeable mounts, mount adapters, etc..... It just became a ball of tangled yarn that was easier to just stuff in a box and add to rather than untangle.

    Once I got a couple thousand lenses deep, I kept detailed notes really, but generally I would still test them on whatever the newer tech was. Jay Holben and a few others on the ASC MITC Lens Commitee (Duclos is on there too) are working on cataloging "every lens that has ever been on a movie camera" which is a daunting task. I think they are up to 3500 lenses or so last time I checked in.

    But in truth I've been treating it like if I was to shoot a film with every lens tested for a given format size. And there's certainly some stuff that passes through on built on knowledge and experience, but it's super damn important to test things out.

    One key story that comes to mind was when a specific cheaper PL Mount adapter infused a "ring reflection" as part of the lens flare itself due to not well planned out design and lack of flocking. And that had nothing to do with the lens or camera, but rather the mount itself. I've also seen some things prohibit the light path of certain lenses that "should cover". Then there's weird stuff like all the potential coverage variation and even mount fitting issues between long manufactured lenses over time. A few lenses out there have had several versions, sometimes not even noted by manufacturers. Though thankfully Canon and a few others rock the Mark I, II, III, IV, etc. In other cases it goes by serial number, but sometimes also origin of manufacturing. And lets not get started on zooms that don't just have coverage variation on the wide or long side, but also in the middle of the zoom range! And it gets weirder with all the Speed Boosters, Reducers, Expanders, and Cheaters (Teleconverters/Doublers) out there. And then there's the variance of manufacturer's tolerances even.

    I'll even go deeper on my rather tight tolerances as I was testing lenses with the full aperture range under a variety of targets. For instance, some iris designs were fine wide open to T5, but at T8 would no longer cover formats that stretched the lens' ability. And then there's the uneven field illumination or drastic performance fall off if a lens even did cover some formats. Won't name names, but that's led a few to see rather expensive prime sets when they realize 30% of a potential image just can't resolve outside of field or the aberrations would be so bad/prone to happen, or the flare would get weird and start bouncing off the lens housing or iris mechanism, etc. And then there's coverage related stuff that actually has to do with close focus and infinity. Some would cover at say 6' but not below, or would cover most of the way and not at infinity. I can't stress enough, a bunch of people testing lenses aren't testing their entire range and capability to have a well rounded knowledge of what a lens can do and when it can't do something. Jarred and co. got to see that first hand way back when it took a few days for me just to test the usual PL cinema suspects on Dragon at RSH when it was new because I tested thoroughly and it took time to find all the points of potential issue.

    TL;DR - It has become a rather simplified mess for me. Which is why so many in the industry just shoot me an email, message, or call. Because sometimes it's as simple of just reaching in a box and slapping a lens on a new camera or just going to my notes. Often in many cases it's stuff I've already tested that became impossible to just present in an effective way and considering all the mentioned variables it became harder deep down to just run with something without testing it on a specific sensor/format/mount combination.

    Dragon 6K S35+ and VV actually created a pretty simple ecosystem where sort of a similar answer was apparent. Be cautious when filming wider than a 35mm focal length generally speaking. But now we have literally more newer lenses than old. And with VV it's really about the varianece between FF35 optics and that image circle + the combined chaos of adding a matte box into the mix. Duclos got to experience that first hand when nudged him to make the bayonet mount 114mm for the Otus because I was indeed filming at 8K FF/maximum format and if you just made a screw on say 95mm adapter you'd get vignette, portholing, and light occlusion. And I guess I won't mention the several times I got notes to a manufacturer either on prototypes or shipping lenses and they integrated a slight change and nobody was the wiser *stares passionately at the Voigtlander M-Mount primes they cut off the rear of for me*

    Heh. I love being early to the party to figure all this stuff out. It oddly has a beneficial impact on the industry as a whole across a variety of camera manufacturers. But somebody needs to do that leg work to really dive deep. It's just more complicated than I can even explain above and "tolerances" become a fascinating discussion point.

    Don't let any of this scare you. You have more lenses options than ever in the modern era than ever before and it's getting simpler. It's very literally the reason I own so much glass. I'm not exactly collecting them, these are tools I deploy as I desire what they can do.
    Phil Holland - Cinematographer - Los Angeles
    ________________________________
    phfx.com IMDB
    PHFX | tools

    2X RED Monstro 8K VV Bodies and a lot of things to use with them.

    Data Sheets and Notes:
    Red Weapon/DSMC2
    Red Dragon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #38  
    Quote Originally Posted by Phil Holland View Post
    Yep and as Blair mentions there's a good amount of space.

    On DSMC2/DSMC cameras due to the general design of the Sensor Box/Cavity/Gate/whatever you want to call it, the Leica-M Mount has issues with some of the wider lenses in particular due to the fact that the retrofocus and rear elements protrude very far into the body. Similarly there are older PL lenses that really like to stick their glass down the throat of a camera and have proven not compatible on many systems even.

    Komodo should not have any of those limitations due to the way further back sensor and optical array (Sensor Cover Glass, OLPF, etc).
    The only thing i'd add (because i'm seeing some issues) is that whilst that means physically they will fit but will all the lenses perform as best they can? The wider M mounts tend to have very shallow rays hitting the sensor. So the sensor itself can affect the quality - you often seeing colouring at the edges because some rays don't hit the pixels fully because of the cell designs. Then before that the light has to go through a filter stack and the type of thickness of that can really affect the image. The M mount lenses are designed with M mount cameras which have a stack between 0.5 and 0.8mm. But stacks on lots of mirrorless are thicker and give smearing results. Leica have been tweaking their lens designs to help this. The very latest 28mm summicron is leagues away from the pre 2016 one in this regard.

    I'd imagine you'd need to test this combination to see.

    On a positive note a lot of the lenses do work fairly well on Helium aside from the ones that physically hit the OLPF.

    Fingers crossed on this because i would love to stick to M mount glass on Komodo.

    Apart from that i don't really know of any lighter weight APO style lenses

    cheers
    Paul
    -------------------
    insta: @paul.inventome
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #39  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    438
    One of the things I don't think people are taking into consideration about the RF line of lenses, is that it may be less video friendly.
    While smaller and lighter for instance, the RF 70-200 is telescoping out to the size of the original EF version depending on your chosen focal length.
    So obviously, this is not exactly mattebox friendly, not to mention the potential for dust and weatherproofing issues with an extending and retracting barrel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #40  
    Quote Originally Posted by C. Burkhart View Post
    One of the things I don't think people are taking into consideration about the RF line of lenses, is that it may be less video friendly.
    While smaller and lighter for instance, the RF 70-200 is telescoping out to the size of the original EF version depending on your chosen focal length.
    So obviously, this is not exactly mattebox friendly, not to mention the potential for dust and weatherproofing issues with an extending and retracting barrel.
    Weatherproofing is my concern as well.
    But I trust that GDU (), Sigma or even Canon will come up with more cinema friendly versions.
    Formerly known as "nutman"
    ||| RED ONE #1333 ||| Epic-X #1003 |||
    ||| RED Hydrogen Houdini #0034 Titanium #1014 |||
    H4Vuser
    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