Best PL Zoom for hand held / Steadicam

[Lenny Manfred]

steve, it does not matter who makes it, the laws of physics apply the same. those 28-300 and 18-100 zooms are very slow. notice i am not questioning sharpness or picture quality either. speed is enough reason to limit range. if you want 2.8 through the range that means that they have to make a lens big enough that at 300 it will be 2.8, and then mechanically adjust down from there. so picture a canon 300/2.8 and start from there.

leica once made a high quality 28-90, or was it 35-70, i can't remember any more, that was a true 2.8 through out. it was really big and very expensive, they ended up not making more because it would cost them too much to do it. anything smaller is a compromise. and usually the place where you compromise is speed. there is no way around it.

but if you don't mind an aperture of 6.3 or so in the long end, then the sky is the limit for you. i just don't see using something that slow as an ENG everyday lens. and i have been a news cameraman for over 25 years.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Lenny,

for a certain daylight indoor/outdoor situation I didn't find this Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 Aspherical LD IF on R1 too SLOW...!!!

Have a look at the examples that all shot hand-held on R1:

Detail from test clip shot @ F/5.6, 320 ASA with Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 Aspherical LD IF on R1 (Nikon mount).

Short clip with audio>>

Detail from test clip shot @ F/8, 320 ASA, no ND & Circ-Pola with Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 Aspherical LD IF on R1 (Nikon F mount).

Short test clip 2>>>

Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 Aspherical LD IF on R1
Also quick zoom out test with audio from today at late afternoon, @ f/5.6, 320 ASA, ND 2 and Circ-Pola screw in Hoya filters,
direct export to H264 at the "selected duration"/copy/paste to new file from 1K QT R3D proxy file.
No any CC or processing in RedAlert or RedCine. Everything directly exported from QT proxy.

Download>>>

 

[Lenny Manfred]

yeah, i understand. you can control where and when you shoot. i can't. i shoot outdoors and indoors, sunny days and evening, brightly lit or natural light, so what i call an all around lens is very different from what would work for you maybe. i need the speed. 2.8 is already pushing it for me.

plus i always shoot wide open, because i like to separate the subjects from the background (part of the point of shooting with a red vs a 2/3 or 1/3), so i need a lens that looks good wide open. none of those long range photo zooms are very good wide open. so i am stuck with spending more and going for the cine stuff.

 

[David Rasberry]

Lenny,

for a certain daylight indoor/outdoor situation I didn't find this Tamron AF 28-300/3,5-6,3 Aspherical LD IF on R1 too SLOW...!!!

The change in exposure when zooming would be unacceptable for me. Even if the lens is relatively slow, no ramping would be a required feature.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

There are always compromises involved.

If you go Nikon option you'll find pretty good f/2.8 zooms

14-24 G excellent

17-35 pretty good

35-70 very good

80-200 also good

Go Canon EF

10-22 APS-C very good

16-35 very good

35-70 excellent

80-200 excellent

 

[Steve Gibby]

steve, it does not matter who makes it, the laws of physics apply the same. those 28-300 and 18-100 zooms are very slow. notice i am not questioning sharpness or picture quality either. speed is enough reason to limit range. if you want 2.8 through the range that means that they have to make a lens big enough that at 300 it will be 2.8, and then mechanically adjust down from there. so picture a canon 300/2.8 and start from there.

leica once made a high quality 28-90, or was it 35-70, i can't remember any more, that was a true 2.8 through out. it was really big and very expensive, they ended up not making more because it would cost them too much to do it. anything smaller is a compromise. and usually the place where you compromise is speed. there is no way around it.

but if you don't mind an aperture of 6.3 or so in the long end, then the sky is the limit for you. i just don't see using something that slow as an everyday lens. and i have been a news cameraman for over 25 years.

I think its great you have 25 years experience as a news cameraman. I get criticized occasionally here for quoting my background, but since you quoted yours, here’s mine: I have 40 years experience as a stills photographer, and 32 years experience as a professional cinematographer and videographer – several hundred TV programs which aired on 15 different broadcast and cable networks. We’re both veterans but obviously we see things differently – and that’s OK.

I'm well aware of everything you posted - and I'm also used to those same issues being raised by traditional cine and EFP shooters when the subject of using 35mm stills lenses on DC cameras is raised.

Those slow 35mm stills lenses are not the target lenses I'm suggesting for conversion to a 3-way zoom. I'm curious what your experience has been in shooting 35mm stills lenses on RED One. Which lenses have you used, and how much shooting have you done with them? I'm just trying to get my arms around how you formed your opinion of the quality of footage from using 35mm stills lenses on RED.

Me? In addition to the PL lenses I own and rent regularly for use on my three RED One cameras, I own nineteen Nikon lenses which I regularly use on my REDs - some of them primes - some of them zooms - and almost all of them a constant 2.8 in aperture, one Tokina lens I use on my REDs (11-16 f2.8 zoom with Nikon mount), and one Canon lens I regularly use on my REDs (150-600 f5.6L with a Century PL conversion). Only two of my Nikon lenses are slower than 2.8 constant aperture - my 50-300 f4.5 AIS zoom (still a constant 4.5), and my 400 f3.5 prime.


Here's a short and incomplete list of some f2.8 constant aperture zooms with reasonable long zoom ratios, good optics - which are not huge, but rather comparatively compact and light:

Canon 17-55 f2.8 IS (3.24:1 ratio)
Canon 24-105 f4 (4.38:1 ratio)
Canon 55-250 f4-5.6 (4.55:1 ratio with just 1 stop ramp)

Nikon 17-55 f2.8 (3.24:1 ratio)
Nikon 24-70 f2.8 (2.92:1 ratio)

Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (2.92:1 ratio)

On 12/3 RED announced their RED Electronic Lenses for their DSMC cameras – and one of them (25-100 f2.8 zoom) – is a constant 2.8 aperture 4:1 zoom ratio hybrid lens – and I guarantee you it won’t be huge and heavy. Now RED just has to leverage that same technology out to an 8:1 and a true 3-Way Utility Zoom will be a reality.

I see you're currently selling a Century converted and re-housed Nikon 17-35 zoom for somewhere around $13k. The Nikon 17-25 f2.8 zoom is one of my favorite Nikon lenses I own and use regularly on my REDs. Mine cost $1,500, is stock, and I use it on an Underdahl Nikon DX mount. Guess what - I don't mind having some mechanical workarounds to get my Nikon 17-35 images on RED - I guarantee you mine are as good looking as yours - and yet you paid nine times as much for your lens. So, its obvious our approach to lenses is different. I believe in maximizing technology - and minimizing overhead -and the bottom line is just getting real good images that please our clients, networks, etc. Right?

There are a lot of guys with big investments in "pro stuff" who are real intimidated by people leveraging 35mm stills technology into motion media acquisition - but that won't stop the pent-up demand by convergent indies from being satisfied by enterprising 35mm stills lens manufacturers.

There are a vast number of genres which don't shoot wide open all the time: documentaries, sports, music, lifestyle, wildlife, travel, nature, and on and on. Most of them shoot between f4 and f11 for their needs. In fact of the total amount of motion media production worldwide each year, the percentage amount of shooting wide open is in small minority. Yes, RED One (and Epic/Scarlet to come) will be used extensively in those same genres. Are professionals shooting in those stopped down genres any less professional than WO shooters on RED (narrative, etc.) - heck no - only in the mind of WO shooters. Shooters in those genres know exactly how to shoot WO for shallow DOF when needed for shots.

Granted these examples are not 8:1 or 10:1 zoom ratios like the aperture-ramping lenses with long zoom ratios (18-200, 28-300, etc.), but they’re good examples of medium long zoom ratios and constant apertures – without being commensurately large. Its just a re-working of latest stills lens technology to hop up to 6:1, 8:1, and eventually 10:1 – without the lenses being inordinately large and heavy.

With today’s 35mm stills lens technology, large numbers of shooters who now work in all three disciplines (cine, stills, EFP), and flexible camera systems like Epic and Scarlet - the demand for a 3-Way zoom lens is there, and will inevitably be made – not by Cooke, Panavision, Fujinon, etc. – but rather by a company that makes 35mm stills lenses - Nikon, Canon, or RED (again RED, see the RED Electronic Lenses announced 12/3).

The above may not change your mind, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree, and time will prove one or the other of us right.

Here’s to the future!

 

[Lenny Manfred]

you are definitively knowledgeable, i can see that. i might not have made my point clearly enough here. i did say before that i wasn't talking about quality, i am sure quality is usable on those lenses. i am all about ergonomics, and practicality.

also, maybe because i live and work in Los Angeles i am a little biased. but i think pros do things the way they do them because it makes more sense to do them that way, and not just to be fancy.

when i first bought my red and had no pl lenses i went for the nikon mount and my zeiss zf lenses. the picture looked fine, but i wanted a real matte box and follow focus, and that was not an option (it is now, but with compromises). also, maybe in part because of where i live, part of the work i do is with/for professionals, so i can't show up with a mickey mouse set up and expect to be called back. people here have certain expectations that you have to meet, so i try.

but i do understand that there is a whole "world" of RED users out there that make do with photo lenses, and do fine. i just can't go there (i was hoping for the IMS front, so i could use my gorgeous leica lenses, but that never materialized, not in a practical way anyway).

the question remains is this "world" as large as you think it is, large enough for a lens manufacturer to invest on the R&D necessary to build what you are asking for?

what are we at now, 5k, 6k R1s out there? let's say 50% of those go the still camera lens route, and of those 3k, 20% would buy that lens... is that worth it for a manufacturer that designs lenses that sell in the thousands? maybe that is why we have not seen what you are asking for yet. but it would be great if they did. i give you that.

 

[Lenny Manfred]

I see you're currently selling a Century converted and re-housed Nikon 17-35 zoom for somewhere around $13k. The Nikon 17-25 f2.8 zoom is one of my favorite Nikon lenses I own and use regularly on my REDs. Mine cost $1,500, is stock, and I use it on an Underdahl Nikon DX mount. Guess what - I don't mind having some mechanical workarounds to get my Nikon 17-35 images on RED - I guarantee you mine are as good looking as yours - and yet you paid nine times as much for your lens. So, its obvious our approach to lenses is different. I believe in maximizing technology - and minimizing overhead -and the bottom line is just getting real good images that please our clients, networks, etc. Right?

i missed this the first time. let me answer that. to me paying the extra 12,000 for the convenience was worth it. this lens is corrected not too breathe, it is corrected not to ramp (even though the original was a claimed 2.8 throughout, it really wasn't, a common thing with photo lenses, so they made it a T3 and close the iris on the wide side a bit to make it a real constant aperture), they also extended the focus rotation, plus, since i only own one R1, i did not want the complication of changing mounts on a job when switching from photo lenses to pl lenses. i can use a standard size matte box, that i already owned, and saved money there, plus my follow focus. and one more thing, it just looks more professional.

but that's true, that's a big money difference. i just think it was worth it.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Lennywood,

I understand the L.A. workplace and mentality thoroughly. I was based in L.A. throughout most of the '80's, living in Manhattan Beach, and working daily throughout the L.A. basin and the Valley.

I live 3 hours north of L.A. for lifestyle (clean air, no crowds, greenbelt, beaches), but the price I have to pay for that is a lot of driving back and forth to the Valley and L.A., for business, and to fly out of LAX for business. I happily pay that price for the peace of mind I get where I live.

In my experience in L.A., then and now, I'm well aware of a "the production world revolves around L.A." attitude. IMO that is a throwback to the early days studio system, and really not to far from the truth until maybe the '70's/'80's when a lot of professional production work began spreading around to other parts of the world as more affordable and portable technology enabled the change. That accelerated in the '90's and since 2000, to where now there are top-level professionals doing work all over the world. L.A. is still very important in the production world - but nowhere to the extent it used to be. But many L.A. workers are living in the past, looking down their noses somewhat at non-L.A. industry workers - and that attitude perpetuates from one generation of workers to the next - that feeling of superiority because they do business in L.A. There are young guys right here on this forum whose attitudes changed markedly when they finished film school and started working in the L.A. industry - they absorbed the superiority attitude and it is evident in many of their posts.

There are gigantic amounts of motion media production produced all over the world - film, television, business video, etc. Most of those professionals working in those areas and industries are definitely aware of the L.A. industry, but except for a percentage of wannabe young "filmmakers" who are starry eyed by L.A. industry luminaries, the world's pro motion media workers don't think of themselves as lesser pros.

A motion media pro is a pro - no matter what geography and/or industries they work in.

In the hands of a true pro, even a modest paint brush can be used if necessary to paint a masterpiece. Conversely, equipment doesn't define who is a pro - experience, skill sets, talent, and tenacity define who is a pro - no matter where they live and work.

Many non-L.A., and non-union pros maximize technology/minimize overhead, and simply don't feel the L.A-type peer pressure to have a "proper looking camera setup", always using a matte box, follow focus, and cine style equipment. Are they lesser pros - heck no. There are tons of them around the world who can shoot circles around the supposed pros from L.A. - and do so without the very best equipment, and a security blanket of ten guys surrounding their camera to help them.

There are inventive, highly skilled indies all over the world cranking out amazing images with RED One (and Epic/Scarlet to come) with less than top level lenses and accessories. I work all over the world - and I'm constantly amazed at the talent, and images created by shooters of RED everywhere.

With the advent of the DSMC convergence cameras, the demand for multi-utility lenses, and the potential sales market for such, is increasing monthly. Stills lens manufacturers don't have to re-invent the wheel so to speak to meet the demand for a 3-Way Utility Zoom - they simply have to re-work their existing technology.

Respect is a 2-way street. We all need to give respect, and expect respect. RED One, and Epic/Scarlet to come are convergence cameras, especially in the case of the new DSMC camera model, which are especifically designed to be easily re-lenses and re-accessorized for use in cine style, stills, and EFP.

This is what a forum like RED User is for - the respectful exchange of ideas, concepts, experience, and results.

On another note Lennywood. I see from your profile that you are originally from Puerto Rico. I've traveled the a few times and hand a great time - the food, people,etc. - I seriously can't wait to go back!

 

[rod bradley]

Different worlds, difference financial demands, different rewards systems, different sub cultures -- true in cinema/movie/image making world just as in any other -- always more than one way up the mountain, some barefoot, others with the the best proven boots -- which is the great thing about Red and upcoming Red generation, they make it easier to get there either way.

So I understand Lenny (I'm there sometimes have to deal with set snobbery which isn't totally unfounded of course --it does work best for that kind of work) ---and agree and go the Steve route (more often and becaue it's what I can afford) -- and yeah, I hope I'm still around when the lightweight all-purpose utility zoom becomes a reality -- which I think it will.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

For me the best movies never been connected by LA or Hollywood.

Sorry I'm European educated...

But also I'll never forget "L.A. Woman" the music album by the American rock band "The Doors"

and lead singer Jim Morrison.

That was a pure art project even beyond the music, it was almost a spiritual kind of attitude,

something that I didn't meet in any other artwork from that period...

Also have seen one documentary about Austrian architect R.M. Schindler (1887-1953)

and saw how somebody with a good idea can simply fail and vanish in LA.

Also a lot of recent award winning contemporary films that were produced by LA/Hollywood companies

were not made by LA movie spirit or aesthetic(s) anyway.

That's described the best as a "Globalization of Hollywood" were LA is just one of many other passing-by stations to the film success.

Have you ever heard about guys like a Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott,...etc...

 

[Steve Gibby]

i missed this the first time. let me answer that. to me paying the extra 12,000 for the convenience was worth it. this lens is corrected not too breathe, it is corrected not to ramp (even though the original was a claimed 2.8 throughout, it really wasn't, a common thing with photo lenses, so they made it a T3 and close the iris on the wide side a bit to make it a real constant aperture), they also extended the focus rotation, plus, since i only own one R1, i did not want the complication of changing mounts on a job when switching from photo lenses to pl lenses. i can use a standard size matte box, that i already owned, and saved money there, plus my follow focus. and one more thing, it just looks more professional.

but that's true, that's a big money difference. i just think it was worth it.

I understood the differences between the stock and converted version before you explained them. The original version does breathe a little, but not excessively. What breathing it does is not a big problem for most non-narrative genres of production, unless someone's shooting style is to rack focus a lot. Again, the slight ramping in the original version isn't a problem if you're aware of it and simply work around it. In a world where you're shooting film or RGB video it could be a bigger problem, but RED shoots RAW, and slight ramping and breathing are usually easily correctible in pre-post and post.

An extended focus rotation is only an issue to those whose workflow entails cine accessories and use of an AC for pulling focus. Huge numbers of people using 35mm stills lenses on RED One (and Epic/Scarlet to come), have been, are now, and/or will be eye focusing as single operators - thus a short focus throw is actually a plus when shooting in that method.

I own three complete RED One camera systems. One of them keeps a PL mount on it, and the other two sport Underdahl Nikon DX mounts. Even when I've changed the mounts from one type to the other, it has only taken about five minutes. I leave a mark on the rotational collar for where the back focus is for each type of mount - thus I don't have to re-set back focus when I change mounts. Plus me and my crews almost always eye focus RED - thus even if the back focus is just slightly off after a mount change, its not a problem.

I obviously own a matte box and follow focus for when we do cine style production, but when I shoot with 35mm stills lenses on RED one, I virtually never use a MB or FF. To keep the rigs lightweight and mobile I use screw-on filters, and rack focus by hand on the lens barrel. Tons of guys do the same thing when shooting 35mm stills lenses on RED. The right tool and technique for each job - or portion thereof.

At 60 years old, and being a longtime veteran of this industry, and doing all non-union work, I'm not influenced in the slightest by needing to have a "cinevised" lens and cine accessories on my RED cameras (or Epic/Scarlet to come). I could care less what someone thinks about the "look" of my camera or having to conform with what a supposed "standard" is. I only care about the mobility, and utility of my cameras, and the real bottom line - how my clients and the networks I produce for feel about the end result I deliver them - and they always seem to be happy with what I deliver them - and not the least bit concerned with how I get there. But then again that's the difference between working by choice out in the production world at large as an indie, as opposed to working in tradition bound, union, quite often supertiority-attitude L.A.

I give L.A. workers respect, but usually it is a one way street, with them not returning the respect But that won't stop me from giving respect to every motion media and stills shooter out there - because its in my nature, and I believe everyone deserves respect.

I wish you the best in the work you do, and the equipment choices you make for it. I'd ask the same from you and the rest of the L.A. media establishment. We're all in the same business, we all work hard, we just have made different career choices, techniques, and approaches, which hopefully work out well for both of us.

To be clear, I do shoot traditional cine style, with the same cine lenses and accessories you use - when it is the best choice for a project. But since I work in all three disciplines (cine, stills, EFP), like a lot of other people using RED now days (and Epic/Scarlet to come), we want and need a 3-Way Zoom which cam be quickly and easily re-accessorized for effective use in all three industries. The DSMC cameras will get us most of the way there - but the 3-Way Zoom will complete the scenario.

To me there is no "right" or "wrong" way to accessorize or lens RED One (or Epic/Scarlet) - but merely a right or wrong way to do so for each production or portion thereof, and crew situation.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Different worlds, difference financial demands, different rewards systems, different sub cultures -- true in cinema/movie/image making world just as in any other -- always more than one way up the mountain, some barefoot, others with the the best proven boots -- which is the great thing about Red and upcoming Red generation, they make it easier to get there either way.

So I understand Lenny (I'm there sometimes have to deal with set snobbery which isn't totally unfounded of course --it does work best for that kind of work) ---and agree and go the Steve route (more often and becaue it's what I can afford) -- and yeah, I hope I'm still around when the lightweight all-purpose utility zoom becomes a reality -- which I think it will.

Well said...

 

[Steve Gibby]

In combing RED-related tech threads, which I do when I can find the time, I noticed that on a thread on Scarlet User about an hour ago, Jim Jannard clarified the question a bit on how the new "brains" will talk with electronic lenses, and which lens types the brains will not control. Looks like the RED Electronic Lenses, which the brains will have by far the most control of, will be the logical lens technology from which a 3-Way Utility Zoom could be born. The longest zoom ratio Red Electronic Lens announced was 25-100mm f2.8 (4:1 ratio). If Red can somehow leverage their technology out to say 8:1 (maybe 18-144mm), the 3-Way Zoom could be a reality:

We do have power and intelligent lens data interfaces, but we do not have the ability to integrate Canon or Nikon feedback and control inside our "brain". Not only is that something we choose not to do, it isn't ethical or legal. We would not want Canon to have full control of RED lenses on their camera either.

Jim
3/27/09
http://www.scarletuser.com/showthread.php?t=2739

 

[David Rasberry]

A friend of mine, a gaffer working out of Atlanta, works occasionally with LA crews on projects. He was always a bit insulted when they would ask," So are you local or professional? " when they were introduced.
He said he got a lot of satisfaction out of walking onto is first LA set and popping the question," So you guys local or professional? "

 

[Steve Gibby]

A friend of mine, a gaffer working out of Atlanta, works occasionally with LA crews on projects. He was always a bit insulted when they would ask," So are you local or professional? " when they were introduced.
He said he got a lot of satisfaction out of walking onto is first LA set and popping the question," So you guys local or professional? "

LOL...I like that

When I produce programs, I quite often dip into the L.A. talent pool to hire people for my programs and the ones I'm a hired gun producer on. The very first thing which will get someone crossed of my "might hire" list is a air of superiority in the prospective worker. Since networks have recently canceled several series, and on the heels of the strikes, I'm regularly contacted by many, many L.A. acquaintances seeking freelance work on my productions and the ones I'm repping. Again - I weed the egomaniacs out quickly - they're too disruptive to an otherwise cohesive crew.

As DP on a recent large-crew project I worked on, with crew from several areas of the USA and beyond, I was asked by the Executive Producer to recommend several Southern California crew to fill positions. I did - and some of them came from L.A., but they were the respectful types who could work as a team with non-L.A. crew - and everything went like clockwork - no problems.

Its a big but small industry my friends - and word travels fast and sticks long.

---------------------

To bring this back on thread, I believe there is a huge market for the 3-Way Utility Zoom I've suggested for a long time now, Blair affirmed that when he started this thread, and others have throughout this thread. I'd like nothing more than the maker of the 3-Way to be RED, and for it to be a new offering in their RED Electronic Lens line. After all, the RED Electronic Lenses, in tandem with the new RED mount, will apparently have by far the most "talk" ability with the new brains (see my Post #74 above) - I would guess control of most, if not all lens functions. The RED Electronic Lens line has been depicted as featuring AF (auto focus - except in 15-25mm zoom), and image stabilization. The DSMC camera models are projected to shoot stills or motion at the flip of a switch. Which of the camera/lens electronic features will be available in motion mode will remain to be seen.

I'm seriously salivating at the potential in this! When they were first announced in December I decided to buy each of these new electronic lenses - because they fit my production genres and field workflow techniques well. Now if a 3-Way Zoom is added in, along with the other electronic lenses, that would seriously top off the kit for me

 

[Lenny Manfred]

ok, when did i become mister LA? i am a foreigner here, remember?

it is not an issue of hollywood vs the world. most large budget productions do have a work style that is similar, no matter where they are based. and it is what it is for a reason, i would think. but that does not mean that there aren't independent filmmakers out there able to do magic with very little, especially with the advent of the new technologies.

all i am saying, which seems to have been turned around a bit, is that i work here, and if i want to work here, i have to offer people what they expect. it is as simple as that.

when in Rome...

and i still say that i will be very surprised the day they announce a 12x T2.8 zoom for the RED that will cover 4k and weights under 5 lbs, happy, but surprised.

now, i bow out here. i can't argue with Steve, he will just argue me to death if i try.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Lennywood,

Yes, most large budget cine-style productions, and some large budget hardlined EFP style productions work in a similar style, using cine lenses, accessories, and crew composition. I think that stems from several factors: tradition, legacy investments, unions, peer pressure, comfort zone, and just the notion that they have everything figured out correctly - and change happens very slowly in those markets because of those factors.

The production industry isn't just split between two classes: large L.A. type crews and single indie "filmmakers" - the vast majority of the overall total of professional motion media production worldwide each year is done by medium sized companies and crews, using hybrid EFP/cine camera setups and techniques. These are medium budget professional productions: features, television programs, regional commercials, and mid to high level business media projects. These are non-hardlined, non-union, with crew sizes that range from two to ten people. Producers in this arena have the flick on maximizing technology and minimizing expense - a good mantra in any business. A good end product the client likes is what they're after - and they just want to achieve that in a cost-effective way - thus the alternative equipment, lenses, accessories, and techniques.

If you choose to work in L.A., another major metropolitan center, and do large crew, union work, that's fine - and yes, because of the factors I itemized in the first paragraph of this post you end up having to conform or get railroaded out. Life is full of choices. If yours are working for you, cool, stick with them. To each their own. I lived and worked in the L.A. market for eight long years of my career - and yes I was union - I know how that works completely. I burned out on that, and since I've been out here traveling the world, working in the super-fun genres of production, and enjoying life.

With the change in technology of the '90's and this decade, in this industry you can do anything from anywhere - top level production from anywhere in the world. You no longer have to live in a major metropolitan area to make a great living and rise to the top of this profession.

Nobody anywhere on this thread was suggesting that a 12x ratio zoom would be a reality anytime soon. An 8x or possibly a 10x zoom, which isn't as big as a bazooka, and is relatively affordable (maybe $10k to $15k) is possible with today's 35mm stills technology, and will be made, probably sooner than later - because there is a huge demand for it. On this thread we're just thinking out loud that there is a demand for it, and its now possible using 35mm stills technology.

Look at all the flak RED took when they dared to be progressive in announcing the RED One camera (vaporware, etc.). Where did most of the flak come from? The large crew, union, tradition-bound portions of the industry - for the reasons I itemized in my first paragraph of this post. Certain progressive members of that industry did embrace RED early on (Jackson, Soderbergh, etc.), but the majority of the early support for RED came from the mid-sized crew hybrid cine/EFP and indie portion of this industry - and still does. I'd guess that is the group which has purchased overall the most RED products too.

The large productions get a lot of publicity and press - but the mid-sized and small crew people buy numerically overall a lot more total product from RED. Thus were not afraid to voice our equipment needs to RED - here on RED User and elsewhere. We buy a lot of RED products, quite often work in different techniques, with alternative camera setups, and our needs necessarily vary from those of large crew productions. But RED still needs to listen closely to us - because we buy and use huge amounts of RED products.

This wasn't an argument - but rather a professional discussion - and that's what a forum like this is for. We disagree, but that's fine. Its a big motion media industry, and everyone isn't going to agree.

I wish you only the very best in your work. You're a veteran so you must be very talented and tenacious or you wouldn't have survived this competitive business for 25 years. I think that's great! When you're working, remember that there are tens of thousands of others out here in this industry who are also working hard for a living as professionals. We may have different needs, but we also have common ground, and we're all in this together.

 

[Nick Gardner]

Yes, most large budget cine-style productions, and some large budget hardlined EFP style productions work in a similar style, using cine lenses, accessories, and crew composition. I think that stems from several factors: tradition, legacy investments, unions, peer pressure, comfort zone, and just the notion that they have everything figured out correctly - and change happens very slowly in those markets because of those factors.

you end up having to conform or get railroaded out.

Steve,

I don't know why you are so threatened and pissed off at movie crews. We get it, there is other type of work other than union work. That does not mean that the way it is done on a professional movie set is wrong.

Frankly, you are not in 600. So it is imposable for you to have worked on a 600 movie. We do shit for a reason. Part of it is accountability. Part of it is the fact that after 100 years of making movies, we pretty much have it figured out.

Steve you are a knowledgeable guy, and apparently you can type more than anyone else on Reduser, but your attitude towards a union that you are not in, and apparently know nothing about, is offensive. We understood your point of view about union crews the first 200 times you posted about it. Give it a rest.

Nick Gardner
Local 600

 

[Steve Gibby]

Steve,

I don't know why you are so threatened and pissed off at movie crews. We get it, there is other type of work other than union work. That does not mean that the way it is done on a professional movie set is wrong.

Frankly, you are not in 600. So it is imposable for you to have worked on a 600 movie. We do shit for a reason. Part of it is accountability. Part of it is the fact that after 100 years of making movies, we pretty much have it figured out.

Steve you are a knowledgeable guy, and apparently you can type more than anyone else on Reduser, but your attitude towards a union that you are not in, and apparently know nothing about, is offensive. We understood your point of view about union crews the first 200 times you posted about it. Give it a rest.

Nick Gardner
Local 600

Yes, I'm not in 600 - by choice. If you choose to be, fine. Life, and professional life is full of choices. You guys in 600 do it your way - but the tens of thousands of non-union guys out here do it our way. Neither way is "the right way". How does "100 years of making movies" apply to the myriad of non-movie motion media work done worldwide? Answer - it really doesn't. There's a huge industry full of non-feature professional work being done out here - and we simply don't care who's doing features - and we don't care for the egocentric attitudes involved.

Me know nothing about the unions? Get your facts straight Nick. I lived in L.A. and worked union for eight full years of my career - so what's "offensive" is your lack of straight facts on my background.

I'll post my experiences, insight, and opinions here whether you like it or not. I've been around RED since mid-2005 - longer than anyone here except a few members of RED Team - and I've given extensive input here, and untold hours as a moderator and heavy contributor since RED User was formed.

If I posted an opinion on the union attitude 200 times here, which by the way is a gross exaggeration, its because that union attitude has been reflected in thousands of posts here. Once there's mutual respect exhibited I'll move on.

Steve Gibby
non-local indie