Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The Day of Understatements... (RED primes)

jbeale said:
But just to take a contrary (and theoretical) view, think about how the optical system reacts to points in front of and behind the plane of exact focus.
Click to expand...

Good point and excellent follow up tests. The CA could certainly change the tone and hue of the picture.

btw I just accidentally ran across Matt Uhry's 18-85 review and the cooke was warmer. No idea what his testing procedure was. It could very well be the lighting. Just a thought it was an interesting coincidence... and one more compartive test where the cooke image was warmer.

*OBLIGATORY NOTE* THE TESTS WEREN'T RELATED TO COLOR SO IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IS NOTHING MORE THAN A COINCIDENCE.*

EDIT: Actually I just got further down the list of tests and color was one of them.

*citation*
http://www.finnerknowsbest.com/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=www.mattuhry.com&Itemid=131
 
Julio Quintana said:
I completely understand that. But your criticism of the Master Primes implies that the RED primes are sharper wide open then the MP's. That would be pretty fantastic. For those of us who can't make it to NAB, could you confirm that?
Click to expand...

From what I saw - most definitely YES!

:) Peter
 
Mitch Gross said:
As Harry indicates, my point is that looking at a lens on a lens projector does not begin to come close to a complete analysis of the optical quality of that piece of glass. This is not a pissing match of one lens against another, just a note that one can't try two lenses on a projector and declare one "better" than the other and be done with it. There is so much more to it.

I'm not saying that these new RED primes are not all they're said to be. I have no idea -- they could be stunning. But if all one does is stick a lens on a projector and see edge to edge brightness & sharpness and a few of the other factors that can be judged on a projector like chromatic abberation, then that's as limited a way of thinking as saying "RED is better because it has more resolution" and stopping the thought process there. That wouldn't be giving credit to all the other aspects of what makes the camera what it is or is not just like it similarly short-shifts athe lens.

If I started listing all the other tests of a lens it might sound like I was somehow picking apart the RED lenses, and I'm not. I haven't even seen them yet. That's what I like about the upcoming SALT event. I note that Matt Duclos has remained mum on this topic and I don't blame him one bit.

I'm glad for you guys who got to play with thr RED primes and see them on a projector. The REDuser party will be fun and it will be fun to stick various lenses on a projector. Just don't think that this is the end-all be-all comparison test becuase it's not.
Click to expand...

No offense, but the guys who discount a lens projection test rarely have another way to judge them that is really measurable and not subject to endless debate. You can learn a TON from a lens projector. You see resolution, at the center and at the edges. You see light falloff and vignetting. You see CA, probably better than any test. You see geometric distortion. You see image circle size. You can clearly see breathing. You can see center tracking on a zoom. And the results are not open to debate, marketing and magical thinking. There is a very good reason why Otto and Denny have lens projectors in their rental houses. And they use them religiously. And every lens manufacturer has one at the end of assembly (or should). It is the ONLY way to technically measure the quality of a lens. There are no other factors to mask the quality of a lens.

It certainly does NOT take mechanical construction into consideration... nor pricing. Those are weighed separately. It doesn't measure "character"... which sounds a lot like anomalies to me.

If someone says a lens is great, the best, has no breathing, incredible resolution or whatever and it doesn't show that on a lens projector... it is just marketing.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
If someone says a lens is great, the best, has no breathing, incredible resolution or whatever and it doesn't show that on a lens projector... it is just marketing.

Jim
Click to expand...

Hi Jim,

Interestingly enough when Geoff Boyle asked people to pick the most flattering pictures, the lens projector results did not tally.

Best,

Stephen
 
Interesting and informative thread here. It seems that there is a good chance that these will be very good lenses, perhaps exceptional. I can't wait for the opportunity to try them out. When I first got my Red, there were a number of people I have worked with who laughingly or gravely told me about issues they'd heard about from someone else who heard about them. Now they all want to use it. Since meeting Jim last year at NAB, I have developed some trust in his vision, and secretly I want him to succeed. Bring on the primes!
 
Jannard said:
No offense, but the guys who discount a lens projection test rarely have another way to judge them that is really measurable and not subject to endless debate. You can learn a TON from a lens projector. You see resolution, at the center and at the edges. You see light falloff and vignetting. You see CA, probably better than any test. You see geometric distortion. You see image circle size. You can clearly see breathing. You can see center tracking on a zoom. And the results are not open to debate, marketing and magical thinking. There is a very good reason why Otto and Denny have lens projectors in their rental houses. And they use them religiously. And every lens manufacturer has one at the end of assembly (or should). It is the ONLY way to technically measure the quality of a lens. There are no other factors to mask the quality of a lens.

It certainly does NOT take mechanical construction into consideration... nor pricing. Those are weighed separately. It doesn't measure "character"... which sounds a lot like anomalies to me.

If someone says a lens is great, the best, has no breathing, incredible resolution or whatever and it doesn't show that on a lens projector... it is just marketing.

Jim
Click to expand...

I'm curious how would RPPs perform in a sort of special lens projection test vs. brand new Leica - M Aspherical series of lenses that supposed to be the best photo FF35 still glass available on the market.
 
Jannard said:
No offense, but the guys who discount a lens projection test rarely have another way to judge them that is really measurable and not subject to endless debate. You can learn a TON from a lens projector.

It is the ONLY way to technically measure the quality of a lens. There are no other factors to mask the quality of a lens.
Click to expand...

First of all NO ONE is discounting a lens projector as a test or the fact that you will be able to tell A LOT from a lens with it. All we're saying is that it's not everything for how you "judge" a lens.

As for RPP's vs MP's all i said is that there's more to the MP's then just "resolution/sharpness", corner to corner sharpness - although I know MP's do very well there.

As for lens projection being the ONLY way of technically measuring a lens. I believe that a MTF machine, for example, will tell you far more of what "resolution/ sharpness/ contrast" a lens truly has. It will also tell you about bokeh - even though you will, of course, most probably do visual test for that as well.

I just want to say that I'm not judging your lenses Jim. I can't. I haven't seen them. I have no doubts your lenses are amazing Jim and I understand that you're really proud of them. I would be as well. Therefor I'm really psyched to see them, feel them and I'm sure they will surprise me. All I'm saying is that when they're called MP killers I'm reminding that there's more to the MP's then what the lens projector will tell. A lot more. But if that's all then I guess that a MTF chart will take care of everything except for breathing, CA, fall off, which you definitely can see on lens projection.

Even that in my eyes is not all since it will not tell anything about the feel of mechanics. Interchangeable scales and so on.

SALT will tell us a lot but I'm pretty sure already (from what it already seems to me) that your lenses will turn up as the winner. No one will be able to beat your ALL OVER specifications to your price point. There's also fact that they will be made for the EPIC. AND if even if it eventually shows that durability is not great, because of how they're internally are made. Well then at that price point people can afford to buy new ones when they start to backlash for example. NOT SAYING THAT IS THE CASE - just making a point.

As I've said I know already I will buy one or two sets.
 
I think people need to take a few things into consideration here.

For those renting and if these lenses live up to the hype it will be sometime before many people learn to accept them as they took time to accept the Red cameras so the older lenses superspeeds, MP's, cooke S4's will still be in high demand for some time to come. Also many people will be set in there ways and know what they like etc.
I'd be surprised if these lenses reached wide acceptance less than a year after release.
After that who knows.

People talking about using post to make lenses looke like cooke's etc. is very naive thinking. It can't be done.
These lenses have a specific look for a reason and if that was attainable in post everyone would shoot on one specific lens set and CC to make it look like another lens.

Also until several big projects have been shot on these lenses this hype is irrelevant. We need to see footage and feedback from tried and tested DP's in the field who know there stuff.
I'm not poo-pooing these lenses at all I'm just being cynical as a good film-maker should.

One question I do have is how rugged are these lenses? Properly housed Arri's, Cooke's can take quite a beating. Do these have similar quality of construction?
 
David Ellison said:
People talking about using post to make lenses looke like cooke's etc. is very naive thinking.
Click to expand...

Did someone say that, specifically? I think it is pretty clear that what people are exited about is not being able to get S4's by buying a more affordable set with equal or better specs and grading it.

There is however an immense amount of play with Red Code Raw, and RPP's do sound like they will be packing tons of performance in relation to their cost.

Also, many said they think MP's are the mark to beat to be called top dog, and many others think S4's are more pleasing. Everyone hopes RPP's will please their personal taste.

If you want S4's you'll get S4's, if you want MP's then get those, and if RPP's are everything we hope they will be, then TONS of people will be getting those... and many more than ever before will be able to buy a set for their company and have 5 primes for an amount that would only get you one wide S4/i.
 
2 Questions,

Where are the RPP's manufactured?

What lamp are you using in your projector?
 
Brian McGraw said:
2 Questions,

Where are the RPP's manufactured?

What lamp are you using in your projector?
Click to expand...

RPPs are manufactured in Japan. Checking on the lamp.

Jim
 
I think part of the Cooke image comes from their fairly unique iris blade shape. Even wide open they aren't completely round; they have more of a star shape to them which makes the bokeh very unique and beautiful, IMHO.

Mulholland_Drive_Bokeh.png


Note, the image above looks like it's stopped down a little but I chose it more for its ease of identifying the bokeh and the fact that I remember the shot and its location on the DVD easily!

That said, I am looking forward to the RPP's very much because frankly I can't afford a set of Cooke S4's. Knowing Red I have absolute faith that they will be stunning lenses at any price. That they come in under US$20,000 is just a bonus that makes them reachable to own instead of rent.

Cheers,

Paul
 
Jannard said:
RPPs are manufactured in Japan. Checking on the lamp.

Jim
Click to expand...
My best guess (and it's only that, a guess) is that Sigma has a contract from Red to build the lenses for them (both 18-85 and RPPs, and probably other future lenses).

I'm basing this guess on the likelihood of the 18-50 and 50-150 lenses being rehoused Sigmas, along with the fact that Canon and Nikon would be less likely to work for the perceived competition. Sigma, as a third party lens manufacturer mostly (yes, they do build a few cameras too) with an increasing reputation for excellent lenses in their newest offerings, would be the most ideally placed to handle the volume required by Red, the quality needed as well as the price point.

Jim, can I pick these up directly from the factory? :sifone:

Just kidding!! :rofl:

Paul
 
Paul Leeming said:
My best guess (and it's only that, a guess) is that Sigma has a contract from Red to build the lenses for them (both 18-85 and RPPs, and probably other future lenses).

I'm basing this guess on the likelihood of the 18-50 and 50-150 lenses being rehoused Sigmas, along with the fact that Canon and Nikon would be less likely to work for the perceived competition. Sigma, as a third party lens manufacturer mostly (yes, they do build a few cameras too) with an increasing reputation for excellent lenses in their newest offerings, would be the most ideally placed to handle the volume required by Red as well as the price point.

Jim, can I pick these up directly from the factory? :sifone:

Just kidding!! :rofl:

Paul
Click to expand...

Nice try but not accurate. There are many ways to produce a lens without having a "major" do it for you. Actually, many advantages to NOT having one do it for you. Also, big surprise... most "big" lens companies have many outside vendors. And the RPPs lenses are a fresh sheet of paper, designed in the US, exclusive to RED program.

Jim
 
Jim, no offense taken and I hope you didn't take any from my comments. As I said, a lens projector can tell you a lot and it is a vital tool. We have them in our facilities as well along with collimation benches and other tools. Hell, we also sell them! I think it's great that you are bringing one and we even considered the idea of having one in our booth this year (didn't do it in the end for space reasons). But a projector does not tell you everything. I would never make a final decision based solely on a lens projector test, but it would be a big part of it for sure. That's all I'm trying to say.
 
Jim, must be in other then PST zone or he had sleepless night.

One thing I can’t explain, when I was comparing Cooke S4 with MPs on the projector MPs were sharper and has much less CA. Also geometry and breathing was almost perfect on MPs.

When I took Cooke S4 and MP out to the street while mounted on the RED, Cooke S4 had better contrast. I was just shooting people walking across the street in noon time.
No adjustment made to RAW. Why some lenses have better contrast? Is this related to coating?
I used 65mm at 5.6 aperture.

Andrew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top