Difference between DSLR & Cine Lenses?

[Aaron Cheater]

I pretty much have my heart set on the fixed 8x Scarlet because of the zoom lens that it comes with, but if I can find a second hand DSLR zoom lens relatively cheap I might go with the interchangeable version.

My question is if there is any difference between DSLR lenses and lenses made specifically for video cameras. Since I am mostly going to be shooting video with my Scarlet, I am wondering whether by putting a DSLR lens on it, or another one made for a still's camera, I will be losing quality or features that I might get from a proper video or cine lens.

Please forgive my terminology and my ignorance, as I am still just a beginner when it comes to cameras.

 

[David J. Shuman]

The difference in the case of the 2/3rd Scarlet is the very large crop factor of using 35mm still lenses. In other words, you would need an ultra wide lens to accomodate the smaller 2/3" frame. These lenses are also not designed for the very tight resolutions the 2/3" chip has. The images would be softer than using the RED mini-primes. The fixed lens version is a bargain and a gorgeous lens for Scarlet. Also with the fixed version you never have to clean the sensor or adjust the back focus etc. Its all self-contained and manual or electronic focus controlled. In the future, I'm sure there will be add ons to the lens to make it wider or more telephoto as well. Hope this helps. -Dave

 

[Noah Kadner]

Breathing, lower optical quality, more difficult to pull manual focus.

Noah

 

[Aaron Cheater]

Are there 2/3" sized still lenses out there that I could use instead of 35mm still lenses so I don't get that cropping?

I'm still hoping Red will announce a detachable version of their 8x zoom lens. However if I upgrade to the s35 scarlet body i'll have a 2/3 lens that i'll have no use for, which is another reason for going for the fixed at the moment. Then again if that happens I could always sell my 2/3 lens and use the money to go towards a 35mm lens, but its all just a thought at the moment ...

Judging from the renders of the fixed version and its lens, however, it looks like theres not going to be much breathing room to get my hand around and that might making manual focusing and whatever else a bit touchy. I could be wrong though. In fact I probably am. Has anyone seen a real fixed Scarlet prototype in the flesh to shed some light on this? Or am I just being stupid?

 

[Ethan Cooper]

Fixed lens.
Fixed.
As in not going anywhere. Physically attached to the camera in way that doesn't allow you to unmount it. (until Red changes the specs on me and makes my ranting on this subject sound stupid)
Fixed.

 

[Rick Darge]

Call me crazy but true cine optics give me a more "3D" like image.

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Are there 2/3" sized still lenses out there that I could use instead of 35mm still lenses so I don't get that cropping?

A super 16mm frame is a lot closer to 2/3" than super 35 is, so 16mm cine optics could be an option (the glass is quite expensive new though, buy perhaps you could get some nice used lenses).

I'm still hoping Red will announce a detachable version of their 8x zoom lens. However if I upgrade to the s35 scarlet body i'll have a 2/3 lens that i'll have no use for, which is another reason for going for the fixed at the moment. Then again if that happens I could always sell my 2/3 lens and use the money to go towards a 35mm lens, but its all just a thought at the moment ...

I don't think they will (in fact, I think they might have confirmed that they won't) because that lens has a lot of electronics on it that are designed to go in the body (the fixed Scarlet is something like three to five centimetres (about an inch to an inch and a half) longer than the interchangeable).

Judging from the renders of the fixed version and its lens, however, it looks like theres not going to be much breathing room to get my hand around and that might making manual focusing and whatever else a bit touchy. I could be wrong though. In fact I probably am. Has anyone seen a real fixed Scarlet prototype in the flesh to shed some light on this? Or am I just being stupid?

People have definitely seem Scarlet prototypes, but unfortunately RED have only shown non-operational versions so far.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I pretty much have my heart set on the fixed 8x Scarlet because of the zoom lens that it comes with, but if I can find a second hand DSLR zoom lens relatively cheap I might go with the interchangeable version.

My question is if there is any difference between DSLR lenses and lenses made specifically for video cameras. Since I am mostly going to be shooting video with my Scarlet, I am wondering whether by putting a DSLR lens on it, or another one made for a still's camera, I will be losing quality or features that I might get from a proper video or cine lens.

Please forgive my terminology and my ignorance, as I am still just a beginner when it comes to cameras.

Well... you could get 2/3" Video lenses on the Scarlet 2/3" interchangeable camera.

I expect RED will offer a mount for it.

There are cine style 2/3" video lenses out there, but you may be very satisfied at this point with an ENG style 2/3" video lens.

Regards.

 

[Aaron Cheater]

Sorry about that Ethan, I should have explained myself better. When I said that I could sell my 2/3 lens after upgrading to the s35 body, I meant I would do so if I ended up buying the 2/3 brain and a 2/3 lens to go along with it, not the fixed 2/3 scarlet because, obviously and as you said, the lens can't be detached.

 

[Rob Castiglione]

"lower optical quality"

"a more 3D effect"

Is there actually any evidence for either of these statements. This is not a rhetorical or smart arse comment. I really want to know.

 

[David Rasberry]

Think of the fixed version as a $8k digital servo zoom lens with a free camera attached. That is about what you would have to pay to get a new ENG grade B4 HD servo zoom or a very good used S16mm zoom with full manual controls.
Older standard 16mm zooms will work just fine too, decent ones serviced with a guarantee from a reputable dealer start around $800 or so with really good ones running in the $3k to $5k range.
Used ones from Ebay are going in the $200-800 range, but you take your chances on quality and most will need at least a routine cleaning and collimation that can run $400 and up depending on lens.
Fixed is a bargain, and you can sell the brain or keep it as a second camera and upgrade to the S35 brain and still lenses using all the same accessories later.

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Well... you could get 2/3" Video lenses on the Scarlet 2/3" interchangeable camera.

I expect RED will offer a mount for it.

There are cine style 2/3" video lenses out there, but you may be very satisfied at this point with an ENG style 2/3" video lens.

Regards.

Most 2/3" ENG glass is designed for a prism / 3 chip camera. The adapter for these lenses is quite a bit more because it uses optics to adjust for this. best bet is a lens that was meant to fire at one image plane. like the single scarlet sensor, 16mm film, or the like.

After testing and researching in the year + waiting for the camera, I think that nice 35mm still glass will serve you better than "affordable" eng glass with an adapter. BEST BET, imho, is the 8x fixed. Its like a 17-136mm (just guessing) zoom. A new zoom like that from cooke or angenieux is much more than the whole fixed system. Thats quite a nice range from wide to telephoto, whatever the finished specs are, and then a few hundred $ each will get you a wide adapter a telephoto from century optics or the like later. So more range, better resolution, less $.

Last thought is that in my opinion, getting something all NEW that you know works well, an interchangeable system with 10x glass will be the costs of 2 fixed scarlets.

Jeff

 

[Michael Hastings]

Most 2/3" ENG glass is designed for a prism / 3 chip camera. The adapter for these lenses is quite a bit more because it uses optics to adjust for this. best bet is a lens that was meant to fire at one image plane. like the single scarlet sensor, 16mm film, or the like.

Jeff

Jeff: what are you basing this on? From my understanding it just needs a relatively inexpensive optical flat to compensate rather than a significant optic like the REDONE B4 adapter which has to expand the image to cover the larger image circle of 2K which is not an issue with the Scarlet 2/3".

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

3chip optical blocks

3chip optical blocks

Jeff: what are you basing this on? From my understanding it just needs a relatively inexpensive optical flat to compensate rather than a significant optic like the REDONE B4 adapter which has to expand the image to cover the larger image circle of 2K which is not an issue with the Scarlet 2/3".

Michael,
3 chip (compensating) optical blocks are quite pricey especially for HD use- around $2000 last I checked.

 

[Michael Hastings]

I'm trying to figure out what is involved optically.

I have had conflicting reports and conflicting experience.

Some reports imply that the 3 chip optical block has something to do with it i.e. colors arrive at different points - but not sure how even the regular lens would handle that. The other report is just that you need an optical flat because the B4 FFDs include the filter wheel in the path so you need a clear filter in the adapter.

I also have a 1/2 B4 type lens adapter that worked fine on the single chip c-mount CCTV lens that NASA/JPL was using (20K lens on a $1200 camera - go figure) but it didn't have an optic at all presumably because FFD wasn't an issue since you just shim or use the adjustment on the camera if the lens backfocus isn't enough.

So what EXACTLY is required OPTICALLY to make a B4 standard lens work on a single chip 2/3" camera?

ALSO $2000 isn't all that pricey since typically just the physical adapters from the usual suspects are $1000 or more - basically it is because they are very low volume from high priced companies. Scarlet should make it very feasible for RED or someone like Optitek to make them more economical. It would give us all something to do with all of those old B4 lenses - and I suspect even the (later model) standard def lenses would work pretty well for a lot of people.

 

[David Rasberry]

B4 lenses back focus R G and B at slightly different distances to match the prism splitter in 3-chip cameras. A similar optical correction is needed for single sensor cameras to avoid some degree of chromatic aberration. In 2/3" Scarlet's case this only requires an optical flat with the correct refraction index. For RED 1 and other PL mount S16mm or 35mm format cameras, the B4 mount also has to magnify the image to some extent to cover the larger sensors.

I personally chose to go with used PL mount 16mm zooms instead of a B4 and at some point will add a servo zoom system to support these lenses. I figure the servo cost will be about a wash compared to the B4 mount. Good HD quality B4 servo zooms are relatively expensive too compared to used 16mm glass, though top notch S16mm lenses are comparable in price to low to midrange ENG zooms.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Breathing, lower optical quality, more difficult to pull manual focus.

Noah

Actually I found out that cine optics are just bunch of "bluff" optical technology solutions that were involved

in the lens design and production during 80's and was pushed with 'throttle" sort of standards till today.

Don't forget that the most of cine lenses for 16mm and 35mm were almost the same sized optical design as still lenses till "bloody 80's" that changed that...

Suddenly came a sort of "demands" from somebody (??!) that cine lenses have to make this or that and it was highly expected "technology fake" move for all cine lens makers

just because they can reach much higher prices of the lenses because charging it for more advanced focusing mechanics.

Cine lenses are not at all with any higher optical quality than still lenses otherwise it will not exist all the time a lot of conversion or rehousing of certain best still lenses to cine side.

Have a look carefully on Panavision lens rental sets and then you'll get it what i'm talking about.

Manual focus is easy to get even with Nikkors (a very short throw) and some Leica R (a longer throw) to 300 degrees of circle turn.

Cine lenses are simply just a hype or bit a fame.

STILL GLASS MORE OR LESS STILL RULES and it will last forever!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

I RED or someone like Optitek to make them more economical. It would give us all something to do with all of those old B4 lenses - and I suspect even the (later model) standard def lenses would work pretty well for a lot of people.

I'm way ahead of you on this one Michael....

 

[Stephen Gentle]

Is there actually any evidence for either of these statements. This is not a rhetorical or smart arse comment. I really want to know.

... "lower optical quality"

I'm sure it's easy to show on a lens projector or something that cine glass would be sharper than stills glass. If it wasn't then I'm sure either still glass would be much more expensive or cine glass would be far cheaper. Of course, the mechanical aspect of the lens (less breathing and all that) should be superior too.

"a more 3D effect"

I think this is purely a subjective observation.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

There are real differences between cine and still lenses in terms of how well they can follow focus continually, as opposed to be focused for a still shot. These are not imaginary or unimportant differences as anyone who pulls focus for a living can tell you. If you are going to follow focus using tape measurements, you want a long barrel rotation with more distance markings. A longer barrel rotation also makes focus racks smoother-looking. Focusing happens in real time in cinema, not in-between shots as in still photography. Note that no professional focus-puller is here on this site telling everyone that it's just as easy to follow-focus on a still lens as it is on a cine lens. But a number of still photographers seem more than willing to say that there is no difference even though they don't pull focus for movies regularly.

The difference between cine and still lenses is not really about sharpness.

Now whether these mechanical differences are worth the extra money for cine lenses, that's a personal decision everyone has to make. But let's not pretend that the differences don't exist -- it's only logical that they exist since they are serving different purposes: the needs for focusing a still image are not exactly the same as the needs for following focus continually during a moving image in real time.