35mm DOF Adapter on Scarlet - (35mm FOV 2k in R3D)

[Sergio Perez]

Wow, 35mm adapters... I was an early adopter of those. Got a brevis 35mm, first without flip, then with flip for my HVX200. Nice results at that time, they were the HDSLRs of the time giving you a film like look -not only the DOF, but the look that came from using superior glass, even running through the adapter, which gave a more 3 dimensional and better bokeh picture. I have to say some of the 35mm adapter pics I got looked better than what I got from my HDSLRs, but there were many limitations to using them so I ultimately changed to HDSLR's. Things like constant dust entering the adapters, power failure in the adapters or loss of power causing moving artifacts, light loss, heavy front end and need to align adapters to the camera lens mount were just too much for guerrilla work. Its still a viable way to get a good picture, though. I think it was redrock micro that introduced a new deign for one of those. Maybe now the technology is there to take away all the drawbacks I described?

I would much ratter ask Red to come out with a 4/3rds mount for the Scarlet. I imagine that they would work well with 3K and 2K at the Scarlet, and this would cover most people's concerns for slow motion. Now for the 120fps 1K, the only solution I see is a Nikon 1 mount... They have somehow received poor reviews, but they should be sharp enough for 1K and provide a field of view that would work on the 1K crop...

 

[Ben Roper]

Maybe I don't get it, or you don't get it Ben, but Scarlet has already the FOV of a S35mm camera. Not of a 5D, but to why should you put a S35 adapter on a s35 camera ? That is a loss of quality for more money ? Please explain ?

At 2k Scarlet will not give you the same field of view as a S35mm sensor. The main point of this is to get full range out of your lenses. This has little/nothing to do with DOF by the way, we're talking FOV!

 

[Ben Roper]

I would much ratter ask Red to come out with a 4/3rds mount for the Scarlet. I imagine that they would work well with 3K and 2K at the Scarlet, and this would cover most people's concerns for slow motion. Now for the 120fps 1K, the only solution I see is a Nikon 1 mount... They have somehow received poor reviews, but they should be sharp enough for 1K and provide a field of view that would work on the 1K crop...

This is an excellent point - one that I looked into. Unfortunately it appears that there is too much depth in the Scarlet/Epic chassis to allow for the use of micro 4/3 lenses.

This should make you all laugh, but even I see 1k as 'too low'! :biggrinjester:

 

[Mick van Rossum NSC]

You don't wanna shoot 2k on a scarlet, at least I don't wanna shoot 2K on my epic. (quality is too low) If I want a 1080P out of a s35mm FOV (yes I am also talking about FOV, not DOF) I connect my PIX 240 and have perfect s35mm FOV quality out of my Epic (or Scarlet)

 

[Ben Roper]

^^^ It's a good call, only downside is RAW, but I guess for most jobs of this sort you probably don't need it much anyway.

When you say 'low quality', what do you mean specifically?

 

[David W. Jones]

Kind of like owning a Ferrari but only driving in first gear.

 

[sergio arguello]

At 2k Scarlet will not give you the same field of view as a S35mm sensor. The main point of this is to get full range out of your lenses. This has little/nothing to do with DOF by the way, we're talking FOV!

Suggestion if depth of field is the objective the get a set of Zeiss 16mm superspeeds then shoot wideopen and backup a lens or two, which is to say, if your shot would normally be a 25mm then backup till a 50mm has your disired framsize and that should get closer to the feel you want...but this adapter thing borders on insanity... due to the fact that your plan goes though more degadation in prisms and glass and thats never good IMHO

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Light loss is half a stop, resolution might be an issue but it depends on the job. With regards to money, due to DSLRs taking off these things are pretty cheap at the moment (think sub £1000).

Light loss through the adapter itself is 1/2 stop. Or so you say. I can't recall what Letus claims, maybe half a stop. It's always looked like more than that to me, but I admittedly haven't placed a Letus (or similar) adapter on a t-stop bench to see for sure. You also have to figure the additional light loss and re-transmission of the front lens. Anyway, what I'm getting at is if you have a lens on the camera at T2.8 and then the half-stop loss of the adapter, plus another lens up front at T3, you'll need to expose as if you're shooting at T6 or even more stopped down. one big reason why adapters have never done it for me. The extreme light loss, resolution loss, etc.. are completely in contrast to the primary intended purpose for the lower resolutions on these cameras -- shooting at higher speeds. In this situation, you NEED sharper, higher-resolution glass. you NEED more light.

Because I will have the ability to offer 4k to clients/pitch for better jobs. But in the mean time if I have access to RAW I want to use it. Especially considering the investment.

I still honestly do not see what you hope to gain from doing this. I understand the FOV concern to make use of the lenses you have, but I really don't understand why you want to shoot 2K?? Seriously, I've read all your responses to this thread and you have not stated one real-world, legitimate, sensical reason for wanting to shoot 1K/2K on this camera. RED gives us these lower resolution choices so that we have more creative options available. The purpose behind the lower resolutions is predominantly so we can shoot at higher frame rates. With that, however, comes a different compression methodology, much lower resolution, cropped FOV, etc..

Working with 4K R3D these days is pretty darn simple. All the good NLE software these days lets you drop 4K R3D files right onto the timeline and edit away. The wavelet-based compression lets you specify a level of working detail or resolution, so you don't actually have to "work in 4K". As a great example, I've been editing 4K (and now 5K) native R3D files in Adobe Premiere since jumping into that workflow head-first in January '09. All for a 72-hour short film competition. With two RED One cameras, we shot approximately 500GB of 4K 24fps footage and 20GB of 3K overcranked steadicam footage. Shot, assembled, edited and delivered a nearly 4-minute short film in that 72 hour period. Here's the kicker -- a friend and I edited it entirely, even with ADR and audio clean-up, plus two shot sequences comped and re-rendered in AfterEffects, on a 2.33GHz Core2 Duo '06 model Macbook Pro 15" with 2GB RAM and a 1.5TB eSATA RAID-0. So yeah, that was all but 3 years ago now! It's even easier today.

Best advice I can give you is to round up a bunch of EPIC/Scarlet clips at both 2K and 4K and work with them. Compare them, see how to edit them, etc... Better yet, rent/borrow a camera and see for yourself. The difference in quality between 2K and 4K is huge and the difficulty in working with 4K compared to 2K is minimal, even non-existent with software like Premiere CS5.5, Avid MC6, Sony Vegas, etc..

2K isn't really "lower quality", but it's 1/4 the resolution, 1/4 the detail to supersample an image from. The latest camera firmware helps a bunch as there were some issues with 2K image quality in previous builds. 2K still exhibits some more visible noise and, IMO, has a slightly lower quality, but I think it has to do with the compression profiles used in the camera. 2K mode compression is optimized for use at high frame rates. Realistically, this is about the only time you will ever want to or need to shoot 2K RAW on an EPIC or Scarlet or RED One.

 

[Ben Roper]

I still honestly do not see what you hope to gain from doing this. I understand the FOV concern to make use of the lenses you have, but I really don't understand why you want to shoot 2K?? Seriously, I've read all your responses to this thread and you have not stated one real-world, legitimate, sensical reason for wanting to shoot 1K/2K on this camera.

It's just the FOV thing. Also without having to shoot ProRes on an external recorder. Thanks for your opinion though, it is valued, even though you clearly think i'm bonkers!

Suggestion if depth of field is the objective the get a set of Zeiss 16mm superspeeds then shoot wideopen

I wish it was that easy to 'get a set of Zeiss 16mm superspeeds'!

 

[David W. Jones]

If you don't mind me asking, what lenses are you going to use with your Scarlet?

 

[Ben Roper]

I don't mind, as long as you don't flame me about it!

I use 35mm stills lenses presently, a range of older Nikon and older Pentax mainly. The sort of thing you can pick up for sub £50 in second han shops. I'm hanging on until I have access to a Scarlet to decide if I need to invest in some better lenses, in which case I'm hoping to go for Canon L-series, but I'd need to do some saving before I could afford my desired line up (which in case you're interested/have some advice is below...)

8-15mm f4
24mm f1.4
50mm 1.2
24-70 f2.8
70-200 f2.8

 

[David W. Jones]

Since your lenses cover the sensor, why do you feel the need to shoot 2K with a DOF adapter?

 

[Ryan De Franco]

Ben, older Nikon and Pentax lenses have life to them that modern SLR lenses often lack. This isn't to say stunning images can't be captured with Canon lenses--they are sharp, even, and technically more advanced.

But don't buy the Canons just because they're the expensive option. Decide if you want contrast and sharpness (Zeiss), expressive color and focus (Nikon) or neutral, even images (Canon). I've shot commercials for international companies entirely on 1980s Nikkor lenses; everyone loves the look even if no one can describe it. There's just something intangible about the color reproduction in old handmade glass.

A 21, 28, 35, 50, 85 and 135 set of pre-AI or AI Nikkor can mount easily with cheap adapters on the Scarlet. Throw in an ultra wide and you're set for about $2000, the cost of the IS 70-200 alone.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

It's just the FOV thing. Also without having to shoot ProRes on an external recorder. Thanks for your opinion though, it is valued, even though you clearly think i'm bonkers!

Yeah, I do think you're bonkers!

I totally understand the FOV thing. What I don't understand is why you want to shoot 2K.

Since your lenses cover the sensor, why do you feel the need to shoot 2K with a DOF adapter?

See, there's another who doesn't understand. Really, we're all trying to help you. You are sacrificing A LOT by shooting 2K. If I wanted to always work in 1080p/2K for some really weird reason, I would shoot 4K and record ProRes or DNXHD to an external recorder. you will get superior resolution and detail that way. You can build various color LUTs/"looks" and load them to the camera. RAW is great, but it's like having the icing with no cake if you're going to compromise all your pixels by shooting 2K and recovering your desired FOV through additional optics, vibrating ground glass, etc.. You will be lucky to resolve 720p out of 2K shot this way. In fact, I would be surprised if you could get better than 600 nominal lines out of it. No, I'm not kidding.

 

[Bob Gundu]

Let's hope they fix the scaling issue for the SDI/HDMI output.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I can sort of understand wanting really really wide lenses. I have a sigma fish eye that I'm going to need to "figure something out" in order to replace if I'm not carrying a 5D as well. The DOF I can also kind of understand. But honestly I would wait until Dragon is announced at NAB before spending a penny. Every dollar for a 35mm adapter could be going towards a new sensor that might be larger.

 

[Patrick Grossien]

Light loss through the adapter itself is 1/2 stop. Or so you say. I can't recall what Letus claims, maybe half a stop. It's always looked like more than that to me, but I admittedly haven't placed a Letus (or similar) adapter on a t-stop bench to see for sure. You also have to figure the additional light loss and re-transmission of the front lens. Anyway, what I'm getting at is if you have a lens on the camera at T2.8 and then the half-stop loss of the adapter, plus another lens up front at T3, you'll need to expose as if you're shooting at T6 or even more stopped down. one big reason why adapters have never done it for me. The extreme light loss, resolution loss, etc.. are completely in contrast to the primary intended purpose for the lower resolutions on these cameras -- shooting at higher speeds. In this situation, you NEED sharper, higher-resolution glass. you NEED more light.



I still honestly do not see what you hope to gain from doing this. I understand the FOV concern to make use of the lenses you have, but I really don't understand why you want to shoot 2K?? Seriously, I've read all your responses to this thread and you have not stated one real-world, legitimate, sensical reason for wanting to shoot 1K/2K on this camera. RED gives us these lower resolution choices so that we have more creative options available. The purpose behind the lower resolutions is predominantly so we can shoot at higher frame rates. With that, however, comes a different compression methodology, much lower resolution, cropped FOV, etc..

Working with 4K R3D these days is pretty darn simple. All the good NLE software these days lets you drop 4K R3D files right onto the timeline and edit away. The wavelet-based compression lets you specify a level of working detail or resolution, so you don't actually have to "work in 4K". As a great example, I've been editing 4K (and now 5K) native R3D files in Adobe Premiere since jumping into that workflow head-first in January '09. All for a 72-hour short film competition. With two RED One cameras, we shot approximately 500GB of 4K 24fps footage and 20GB of 3K overcranked steadicam footage. Shot, assembled, edited and delivered a nearly 4-minute short film in that 72 hour period. Here's the kicker -- a friend and I edited it entirely, even with ADR and audio clean-up, plus two shot sequences comped and re-rendered in AfterEffects, on a 2.33GHz Core2 Duo '06 model Macbook Pro 15" with 2GB RAM and a 1.5TB eSATA RAID-0. So yeah, that was all but 3 years ago now! It's even easier today.

Best advice I can give you is to round up a bunch of EPIC/Scarlet clips at both 2K and 4K and work with them. Compare them, see how to edit them, etc... Better yet, rent/borrow a camera and see for yourself. The difference in quality between 2K and 4K is huge and the difficulty in working with 4K compared to 2K is minimal, even non-existent with software like Premiere CS5.5, Avid MC6, Sony Vegas, etc..

2K isn't really "lower quality", but it's 1/4 the resolution, 1/4 the detail to supersample an image from. The latest camera firmware helps a bunch as there were some issues with 2K image quality in previous builds. 2K still exhibits some more visible noise and, IMO, has a slightly lower quality, but I think it has to do with the compression profiles used in the camera. 2K mode compression is optimized for use at high frame rates. Realistically, this is about the only time you will ever want to or need to shoot 2K RAW on an EPIC or Scarlet or RED One.

Hey Jeff, happy New Year and thanks for the insight! Is there still no final cut solution?
When you edit in premiere, you just drop the r3d files in, and edit away without need of rendering or proxies?

 

[Ben Roper]

Since your lenses cover the sensor, why do you feel the need to shoot 2K with a DOF adapter?

As I mentioned, I do not own these lenses. If I had them I wouldn't be worrying about the FOV!

Ben, older Nikon and Pentax lenses have life to them that modern SLR lenses often lack. This isn't to say stunning images can't be captured with Canon lenses--they are sharp, even, and technically more advanced.

But don't buy the Canons just because they're the expensive option. Decide if you want contrast and sharpness (Zeiss), expressive color and focus (Nikon) or neutral, even images (Canon). I've shot commercials for international companies entirely on 1980s Nikkor lenses; everyone loves the look even if no one can describe it. There's just something intangible about the color reproduction in old handmade glass.

A 21, 28, 35, 50, 85 and 135 set of pre-AI or AI Nikkor can mount easily with cheap adapters on the Scarlet. Throw in an ultra wide and you're set for about $2000, the cost of the IS 70-200 alone.

Thank you! You rock!

 

[Ben Roper]

...I don't suppose you have any old nikkor lenses or know a source?

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As I mentioned, I do not own these lenses. If I had them I wouldn't be worrying about the FOV!

What lenses do you have? I guess I'm still not clear on why the FOV is such an issue? This almost makes it sound like you have some abortion of a lens that is c-mount or super-16 coverage that has been re-mounted to Canon or PL... Currently, unless you're going to be going for a wide angle Leica M lens with the M mount, anything that can be mounted to a Scarlet (with the available lens mounts), is going to cover the sensor.

If you're concerned about FOV, perhaps there are other solutions we can look at?