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 :)

DOF test with Angenieux 25-250mm

Andrae Palmer

Andrae Palmer

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 1, 2007
Messages
2,480
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Age
52
Location
Fort Lauderdale, FL
Website
www.facetmedia.com
Hey Andrae,

Checked out the clip. What settings on the camera did you use and how did you process the footage. The highlights didn't really hold on the fence. Did you shoot at a lower ISO?

Looks like a great lens. Pretty sharp.
 
Lens looks pretty decent - it has a fair bit of that retro look. Also - looking at the picture of the RED and that lens hanging off of it makes me crumble my toes. I really suggest getting a lens support and another tripod :)

I recently bought an old Lomo from a fellow RedUser. That lens is huge (weights in at around 8 kgs) so I'm going down the same road... :)
 
Justin_Kirch said:
Hey Andrae,

Checked out the clip. What settings on the camera did you use and how did you process the footage. The highlights didn't really hold on the fence. Did you shoot at a lower ISO?

Looks like a great lens. Pretty sharp.
Click to expand...

Shot it in 4K 16x9, RC28 (don't have RED Drive yet). Processed the footage in Redcine by pumping up the contrast to 100 and saturation to around 1.6... all other settings were default. Redcine is reporting the ISO to be 100. The aperture on the lens was wide open at f/3.2, focal length around 180mm (I was about 30 feet from the fence)... shutter speed was probably around 1/800th. I'm sure the highlights were blown out due to me not focusing on the fence. I was more amazed how the chain link was disappearing.. coming from the HVX world I was stunned by the DOF and the color/organic look of the angenieux.

Hans von Sonntag said:
Andrea,

as Tony already said please get a lens support. You are damaging your mount.
Click to expand...

I weighed the lens to be around 6 pounds or less. We are awaiting the rest of our gear this week.. perhaps you didn't notice but I was using a Bogen 501 head. Waiting on the Oconnor 2060HD. By Friday we should be rocking and have a pro support for the camera/lens.
 
What camera firmware build was this shot on?

It looks like a combination of problems. There is no detail on the top of the fence and it was brought back with a curve taking down the white point?

With build 16 it will be much easier to hit the correct exposure at the correct ISO (320-500). You'll see if the top is blown or not. And the rest of the image will be fine.

If you are still on Build 15, hold detail on the top of the fence. The rest of the image will look a bit dark. Open up the mids in RED Alert! or REDCINE with a curve... only using the two handles inside the box. Not the corners. We do this for you in Build 16.

And yes, support that lens.

Jim
 
Jannard said:
What camera firmware build was this shot on?
Click to expand...

It was Build 15... will give Build 16 a try once Redcine supports it.

Jannard said:
If you are still on Build 15, hold detail on the top of the fence. The rest of the image will look a bit dark. Open up the mids in RED Alert! or REDCINE with a curve... only using the two handles inside the box. Not the corners. We do this for you in Build 16.

And yes, support that lens.

Jim
Click to expand...

Will heed your suggestions while using build 15. As far as the lens support... only temporary so we can play around while waiting on our orders to arrive. The lens is a lot lighter than what most people think... it was 5-6 pounds.
 
facetmedia said:
It was Build 15... will give Build 16 a try once Redcine supports it.



Will heed your suggestions while using build 15. As far as the lens support... only temporary so we can play around while waiting on our orders to arrive. The lens is a lot lighter than what most people think... it was 5-6 pounds.
Click to expand...

REDCINE for Build 16 has been posted. Your life will be much easier with an upgrade. :-)

Jim
 
Jannard said:
REDCINE for Build 16 has been posted. Your life will be much easier with an upgrade. :-)

Jim
Click to expand...

I've just upgraded and I have to say a low light improvement is very noticeable. Can't wait to test it out tomorrow with the same fence shot.
 
facetmedia said:
I've just upgraded and I have to say a low light improvement is very noticeable. Can't wait to test it out tomorrow with the same fence shot.
Click to expand...

Sounds great. Please do NOT shoot these tests at ISO 100. Shoot them at ISO 320. Get an ND if necessary to get the T-stop you need for the shallow depth of field.

I'm anxious to see your new tests.

Jim
 
macville said:
What's the max amount of weight should we be able to put on the mount before we need a support?
Click to expand...

The overall weight of the lens isn't as important as the distribution of weight. A lens such as the Angenieux in this thread is weighted heavily at the front of the lens. Not only does this strain the mount on the camera and the lens, but it will also place excessive force on the focus mechanics, causing it to wear much, much faster than if the lens was supported at the center of gravity.

A lens like a Cooke S4 can be nearly as heavy as that Angenieux. (depending on the specific focal length) The difference is the S4 is much more compact and the bulk of the lens isn't far from the cameras mount, leaving far less leverage and force on the lens and camera.

Hence, the weight isn't as important as distribution. Needless to say, a 25 lb. Angenieux 24-290 requires extremely reliable support no matter how the weight is distributed. :weight_lift:
 
Matthew Duclos said:
The overall weight of the lens isn't as important as the distribution of weight. A lens such as the Angenieux in this thread is weighted heavily at the front of the lens. Not only does this strain the mount on the camera and the lens, but it will also place excessive force on the focus mechanics, causing it to wear much, much faster than if the lens was supported at the center of gravity.

A lens like a Cooke S4 can be nearly as heavy as that Angenieux. (depending on the specific focal length) The difference is the S4 is much more compact and the bulk of the lens isn't far from the cameras mount, leaving far less leverage and force on the lens and camera.

Hence, the weight isn't as important as distribution. Needless to say, a 25 lb. Angenieux 24-290 requires extremely reliable support no matter how the weight is distributed. :weight_lift:
Click to expand...

What about a Cooke 20-60? Mine weighs just over 7 LBS and is 9" long from the PL mount.

Matthew
 
Hmm...
As a vague general rule, I would say:
Try holding the lens in the same position it goes onto your camera mount, with just your fingers.
If you can't do it, you need to support your lens. (please don't drop your lenses)
2607784472_845578e77f.jpg

Obviously this rule isn't concrete.
Use common sense and when in doubt, support the lens anyway.
Play it safe.
 
cailyoung said:
We're using a 25-250 on a shoot right now in a different housing and I would absolutely not use it without a lens support.
Click to expand...

How much does your lens weigh? I've heard of 25-250's clocking in around 10 pounds... but I've weighed the one we tested on and it's not more than 6 pounds. I've tried to research the different makes of the Angenieux 25-250's but so far haven't come across much information. Anyone has a link to Angenieux lens history? The one we used was the F 25-250mm 1:3.2 Type 10x25.
 
facetmedia said:
How much does your lens weigh? I've heard of 25-250's clocking in around 10 pounds... but I've weighed the one we tested on and it's not more than 6 pounds. I've tried to research the different makes of the Angenieux 25-250's but so far haven't come across much information. Anyone has a link to Angenieux lens history? The one we used was the F 25-250mm 1:3.2 Type 10x25.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I have used the old one 6 pound one without a support a couple of times. The later lenses are much heavier and opticaly superior IMO.

Stephen
 
Matthew Duclos said:
Hmm...
As a vague general rule, I would say:
Try holding the lens in the same position it goes onto your camera mount, with just your fingers.
If you can't do it, you need to support your lens. (please don't drop your lenses)
2607784472_845578e77f.jpg

Obviously this rule isn't concrete.
Use common sense and when in doubt, support the lens anyway.
Play it safe.
Click to expand...

I can support my 20-60 just barely like that, but it would probably do better with a support. Next question, where can I get a support? I've got an extra universal mount for 19mm rods, so I just need something that goes up from that to meet and encircle the lens. Any suggestions?

Matthew
 
Matthew Duclos said:
The overall weight of the lens isn't as important as the distribution of weight. A lens such as the Angenieux in this thread is weighted heavily at the front of the lens. Not only does this strain the mount on the camera and the lens, but it will also place excessive force on the focus mechanics, causing it to wear much, much faster than if the lens was supported at the center of gravity.

A lens like a Cooke S4 can be nearly as heavy as that Angenieux. (depending on the specific focal length) The difference is the S4 is much more compact and the bulk of the lens isn't far from the cameras mount, leaving far less leverage and force on the lens and camera.

Hence, the weight isn't as important as distribution. Needless to say, a 25 lb. Angenieux 24-290 requires extremely reliable support no matter how the weight is distributed. :weight_lift:
Click to expand...

I don't know about the later series 10x25's but the early ones used just a standard multi start focus thread (just like the 16mm zooms did). So supporting the lens in any manner will have no effect on the load of the focusing mechanisim. In fact even with an internal focusing system (where the lens does not change in physical length during focusing) I don't see how a lens support would have any efffect on it. But otherwise, yes a lens support is called for on a lens such as this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top