AF EPIC tests finished - its the future.

[Jeff Whitehurst]

Mark thanks for the insight. But what if you don't want to point the camera at an edge for reasons of shot composition?

I've been trying out "Touch track". Just touch the monitor where you want focus and the zone moves to that position. From page 69 of the Scarlet-X ops guide:

TOUCH TRACK
Dynamically updating positionable AF using touchscreen. Works with Spot Zone only. Keep AF Spot onsubject while moving across frame, will continuously focus on spot.

 

[Matthew Wooten]

Sorry, I have been out of the loop for a bit. Will the Nikon mount not have the same AF support as the Canon? Will it just be a dummy mount?

 

[Mark Phelan]

Sorry, I have been out of the loop for a bit. Will the Nikon mount not have the same AF support as the Canon? Will it just be a dummy mount?

Nikon will have the same functionality the Canon mount does. Just not here yet.

 

[Phil Holland]

I'm with you on this Mark. The biggest issue I'm having with Canon glass at the moment is the focus gear's continued path. I just wish it could lock at closest and infinity. I just did motion control two days ago and it was an interesting experience keeping the gears and marks consistent. That's where Leica, older Nikon, and PL glass really comes in handy as well.

I'm not using the AF much for my style of shooting, but it does work well.

 

[Rob Macey]

Thanks Mark,

I'm shooting in Death Valley, CA tommorow...with Canon glass instead of PL's because I respect you and what you've done to prove this. Thanks man.

 

[Zeb B]

From my own tests and what I seen done I've concluded that you cannot beat the Canon L 1.2 - 2.0 primes for image quality, size, weight, value and the coming AF revolution in cine. Most lenses have a sharpness sweet spot about 3 stops above wide open. From 1.2 you're at F4. From 2.8 you're shooting at F8. Two things:
Price a cine 1.2 lens set
or
Try and shoot Epic available light indoors or deep dusk at F8 at it's "native" ISO of 320+/-. Compromises are made or lighting is u$ed.

Thank you RED for giving us the option to use a wide variety of lens options. If Dragon is 2 stops faster then that will further drive the cost of film making down.

 

[stu aull]

Well its a bit a revelation when Mark steps in with this kind of observation! And a relief, since Canon Zooms are all I can afford/justify for our wee Biz. I will now pat myself for being so clever (ie lucky) in my choice.
Thanks for sharing Mark.

Stu Aull
S-X #00199
Alaska

 

[Björn Benckert]

Also there is one more thing to the equation:

Those Canon lenses are covering Full Vista vision i.e Full Frame, so when the Dragon comes out of the cave those expansive PL lenses that so many now went and bought might not be so hot any more. Then they will be kind of like old PL glass that only holds up for 4k and such.

So we stick with our not so costy vantage Super Baltars until the market completely tips over in a years time or so. Then Red probably has released some really nice Canon mount super speed anamorpics with built in motors that cost 1000 Bucks a pop... that's when we step in

 

[Michael Dalton]

Guys, For anyone who has done serious test, can you weigh in with some specific lenses that are standing out above all?? Can you post samples?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

This has been a great last month... A turning point to in fact... I have gone from being a PL lens purist to a AF junky in 2 short weeks.

4 years ago, I was a 35mm ARRI 435 nutter, nothing could have dragged me off that camera! ... First pictures I got out of our REDONE 158 (which we only bought for fun), changed everything.
Same goes with lenses, I was a master prime junky, every single job was master primes and I would slum to Cookes S4's now and then, then fell in love with the softness of the little ziess MKIIIs on the EPIC only... Being such a pin sharp chip in the EPIC, the MKIIIs took the edge of it.. Lovely... However, I was still a master prime kid.
After the last month with a canon glass and alot of back to back testing, Ive realised I couldn't see $20,000 dollars difference in Master prime optical quality compared to a $900 dollar canon lens... Build quality between the two is a different story though.. But one is 20k more expensive than the other.. so thats a given...

In 4 days time, I'm about to shoot a $1.500.000 Period TVC... its quite a big one, hundreds of extras, huge sets, 5 months in the planning.
I decided after weeks of testing, fiddling and practising... to shoot the entire ad on canon glass. (SHOCK HORROR).
I shot my daughters music video on them for a bit of fun a few weeks ago, and was quite amazed with the AF control, sharpness and the stabilisation... I probably shot 20% quicker because focus pulling, shooting lazars, pulling tape measures, checking sharps by zooming up on frame etc just didnt need to happen...
I found once you figured out how to setup the AF system, once you figgered out what the AF system likes to focus on, it just smacks the target dead and perfectly so much quicker than a focus puller would ever be able too... and I have used the best focus pullers around the world. There is no way they can smack a target this quick... without the aid of measuring devices or a good guess.

How ever... there is no way the Canon AF will track a moving target coming straight at you. So PL manual focus glass and a good focus puller will still be needed. thats a fact. if I'm on a tracking vehicle or crane... then PL is it.

So today was my final day to make a decision... PL SUPER SPEEDS or CANON PRIMES... ???.. thinking thinking... So I thought stuff it, I grabbed my Epic, put a CANON 70 - 200 on it and went for a walk through the streets of Jakarta with a couple of red volts in my pocket, set the AF to Single / spot... and off I went. Pointing and shooting at everything and anything that I went past me, I was smacking sharps ever single time without taking my hands of off the side grip and RED handle once... All at 2.8.

So 1 hour later, 2 revolts down and over 235 shots, I came back to my hotel room, put all my footage into RCX, checked it all for exposure and sharps.... not one single soft image, not even close to being out.

Now If i did the same thing with my PL super speeds I would have never have pulled off so many sharp shots, or even shot half as much, as all the time I'm checking sharps, or rocking my focus back and forth until the image.

So the decision is made... CANON AF it is. (ill have a set off Ziess super speeds sitting to the side just in case) but over all, I'm more than happy to shoot a huge gig on them.

I'll keep you posted.

IF the RED MOTE PRO comes out with AF focus control... Then all our PL glass will be retired.

As usual I strongly disagree. There is a lot to not like about Canon glass, most of all is the curve shapes from in-focus to out of focus, where if you want a blurred background, but wish to keep an entire head in focus you are mostly out of luck under 135 mm, the weird non-linearity of focus-pulls (i.e. the way some parts seem to move distance so much faster than others, with the same speed of rotation- which is way less bad on even a Mediocre PL). the strong variation between lens copies and the breathing - which is only as good as the bottom-end of PLs. Breathing is not easy to fix in post, because it follows a non-linear curve.

Canons are sharp, fine - way sharp. I do not share the obcession of many here with sharpness - its' really the tail end of a list of what's important to me in a lens, unless it's really muddy, which is never really a problem except with vintage glass. But aside form that give me PL glass any day, even with a Redmote or Birger control (which only fixes the last problem not mentioned yet - mechanics).

I also do not share the idea that shooting hundreds of shots more or less well is always better than dozens very carefully. A good Ac becomes part of the creative process, which auto-focus will never even approximate. Stopping to check focus is also taking a moment to think before shooting.

 

[D Fuller]

As usual I strongly disagree. There is a lot to not like about Canon glass, most of all is the curve shapes from in-focus to out of focus, where if you want a blurred background, but wish to keep an entire head in focus you are mostly out of luck under 135 mm, the weird non-linearity of focus-pulls (i.e. the way some parts seem to move distance so much faster than others, with the same speed of rotation- which is way less bad on even a Mediocre PL). the strong variation between lens copies and the breathing - which is only as good as the bottom-end of PLs. Breathing is not easy to fix in post, because it follows a non-linear curve.

Canons are sharp, fine - way sharp. I do not share the obcession of many here with sharpness - its' really the tail end of a list of what's important to me in a lens, unless it's really muddy, which is never really a problem except with vintage glass. But aside form that give me PL glass any day, even with a Redmote or Birger control (which only fixes the last problem not mentioned yet - mechanics).

I also do not share the idea that shooting hundreds of shots more or less well is always better than dozens very carefully. A good Ac becomes part of the creative process, which auto-focus will never even approximate. Stopping to check focus is also taking a moment to think before shooting.

Well said.

 

[Sven Seynaeve]

Thanks for your insight.

keeps me thinking tonight

it's very nce, you seem to get very nice results with them and even it changed your workflow.

 

[Stefan Antonescu]

Thanks Mark, I was waiting for this thread...

I'm in heaven.

 

[Peter.G]

Mark,

Thanks for all the Canon glass tests...

What will your Canon lens package look like for the TVC?
How many cameras?
Will you use Canon glass on the wide end?

-P

 

[Scott Crawley]

Most of us have heard about the mechanics issues. Toia has certainly posted about them, and the SALT tests left no question about the down side of shooting still glass. What I'm hearing here from Mark is not that this is the end of all things PL... That these could really replace them. What I'm hearing is a balancing of his earlier observations and opinion. He seems just to be saying that they can be used acceptably if you are willing, and when you are able to work within a set of limitations. He seems to be saying that the savings is worth the effort in many cases and it works better than you might think. If that is indeed what he is saying then I'm hard pressed to disagree, particularly with the results the man is known to get.

Your points are valid, no doubt. I just don't see them at odds with Mark, as the two of you are talking about two very different situations that call for diffent tools and methods, yielding different aesthetics. I don't see this as a B&W, win/lose argument. You can both be right.

As usual I strongly disagree. There is a lot to not like about Canon glass, most of all is the curve shapes from in-focus to out of focus, where if you want a blurred background, but wish to keep an entire head in focus you are mostly out of luck under 135 mm, the weird non-linearity of focus-pulls (i.e. the way some parts seem to move distance so much faster than others, with the same speed of rotation- which is way less bad on even a Mediocre PL). the strong variation between lens copies and the breathing - which is only as good as the bottom-end of PLs. Breathing is not easy to fix in post, because it follows a non-linear curve.

Canons are sharp, fine - way sharp. I do not share the obcession of many here with sharpness - its' really the tail end of a list of what's important to me in a lens, unless it's really muddy, which is never really a problem except with vintage glass. But aside form that give me PL glass any day, even with a Redmote or Birger control (which only fixes the last problem not mentioned yet - mechanics).

I also do not share the idea that shooting hundreds of shots more or less well is always better than dozens very carefully. A good Ac becomes part of the creative process, which auto-focus will never even approximate. Stopping to check focus is also taking a moment to think before shooting.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Most of us have heard about the mechanics issues. Toia has certainly posted about them, and the SALT tests left no question about the down side of shooting still glass. What I'm hearing here from Mark is not that this is the end of all things PL... That these could really replace them. What I'm hearing is a balancing of his earlier observations and opinion. He seems just to be saying that they can be used acceptably if you are willing, and when you are able to work within a set of limitations. He seems to be saying that the savings is worth the effort in many cases and it works better than you might think. If that is indeed what he is saying then I'm hard pressed to disagree, particularly with the results the man is known to get.

Your points are valid, no doubt. I just don't see them at odds with Mark, as the two of you are talking about two very different situations that call for diffent tools and methods, yielding very different aesthetics. I don't see this as a B&W, win/lose argument. You can both be right.

Absolutely, it is not either / or. On the contrary, it opens up the door to whatever type of glass floats your boat or fits the project. Every lens has shortcomings, only now we get to choose what we like. Fun time to own a camera. Imelda Marcos has nothing on this crowd.

 

[Scott Crawley]

People speak of breathing like an abomination, yet anamorphics breathe and are loved almost religiously by many. I was watching Star Wars IV again yesterday, and there it was... Breathing! Nobody seems to care though. So why does breathing make still glass a pariah?

 

[Scott Crawley]

Breathing is not easy to fix in post, because it follows a non-linear curve.

Is tracking not sophisticated enough to plot the curve so that an inverse could be applied, neutralizing it?

 

[Peter Moretti]

...
I also do not share the idea that shooting hundreds of shots more or less well is always better than dozens very carefully. ...

I can say that whenever I hear "We rigged up 5 5D's and just kept on shooting" I usually want to say "Yes and that's exactly how it looks." More and faster does not mean better. Ususally just the opposite. That said, everything I've seen that Mark has shot looks very nice/beautiful.

 

[Mark Toia]

As usual I strongly disagree. There is a lot to not like about Canon glass, most of all is the curve shapes from in-focus to out of focus, where if you want a blurred background, but wish to keep an entire head in focus you are mostly out of luck under 135 mm, the weird non-linearity of focus-pulls (i.e. the way some parts seem to move distance so much faster than others, with the same speed of rotation- which is way less bad on even a Mediocre PL). the strong variation between lens copies and the breathing - which is only as good as the bottom-end of PLs. Breathing is not easy to fix in post, because it follows a non-linear curve.

Canons are sharp, fine - way sharp. I do not share the obcession of many here with sharpness - its' really the tail end of a list of what's important to me in a lens, unless it's really muddy, which is never really a problem except with vintage glass. But aside form that give me PL glass any day, even with a Redmote or Birger control (which only fixes the last problem not mentioned yet - mechanics).

I also do not share the idea that shooting hundreds of shots more or less well is always better than dozens very carefully. A good Ac becomes part of the creative process, which auto-focus will never even approximate. Stopping to check focus is also taking a moment to think before shooting.

Hi Rob,
You can completely disagree, this is an open forum after all... And your thoughts are all valid.
but I don't think you read the post correctly...

Please know firstly the reason why I went for this outside walk and why I shot over 200 shots, it wasn't to capture great images as I was shooting for know other reason other than to see how good or bad the AF system would work in all types of situations... Fast , slow, dark, bright... What ever the circumstance.
Once you know how to get the best from the AF and know the small tricks to pull focus using AF, then it works very well.

It did everything i hoped it would.
Breathing has never been an issue for me... If it becomes an issue, I just crop into the frame and key frame it back... simple as that. 2 seond job. 99.99999% of the time... I don't even worry about.

I'm just sharing results is all.. I like to share.

most of all is the curve shapes from in-focus to out of focus, where if you want a blurred background, but wish to keep an entire head in focus you are mostly out of luck under 135 mm,

Not sure you know what your on about here...
My 125 cinematography awards from around the world... think this statement is completely incorrect.

Canons are sharp, fine - way sharp. I do not share the obcession of many here with sharpness - its' really the tail end of a list of what's important to me in a lens, unless it's really muddy, which is never really a problem except with vintage glass. But aside form that give me PL glass any day

Some canons are only as sharp PL Master primes, PL RED PRIMES are sharper than a canon lenese... Whats you point?

At the end of the day, while your wanking all over PL glass. (which I have done for the last 25 years), I'm banking on future trends and technologies as well.

There is enough room for both old and new technologies in your life... Try not to fall behind...