Epic & old glass

[Timur Civan]

Is there an approved fd mount for epic/scarlet?

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

FD mount: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-FL-lens-to-RED-Epic-Scarlet-camera-mount-adapter-/251106864848

 

[Clint Lealos]

There are 2 FD mounts that I'm aware of... neither have been approved by Red yet. When they do, the FD lens market is going to blow up! That glass looks fantastic! I feel like I stumbled onto a secret

 

[Ryan Koo]

Clint, if you want to rock your K35's on your scarlet, get the ALL STAR MOUNT. They make a BNCR adapter. It's all RED APPROVED too.

Also, it wouldn't surprise me if the FD coatings match the K35's (giving all these lenses a similar "look"), as Canon was making both at the same time right? This reminds me of similar conversations I've had about how Contax Zeiss and Hasselblad still lenses from the 70's and 80's all seem to have similar coatings to Super Speeds and Standards (which Zeiss was making at the same time also).

It's my understanding with the A-mount you need to buy corresponding adapters for the back of your BNCR-mount lenses, bring the cost of the system up quite a bit. OTOH the Visual Products BNCR mount is Red approved as well and works natively with the K35s:

http://www.visualproducts.com/storeProductDetail01.asp?productID=1461&Cat=139

Unfortunately it's a two-step process to add/remove from the EPIC as it was originally designed for the One. I found this annoying so I had some torx wrenches custom welded to cut it down to a one-step process (allowing the two pieces to live together instead of needing to install the 8 One-mount screws and then the 4 torx DSMC mount screws).

I've also seen this mount for $500 but I doubt it's RED approved:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Baltar-Cook...2102094664272807436&pid=100016&prg=1006&rk=1&

 

[Clint Lealos]

Actually, you only need one BNCR adaptor to use all your BNCR lenses with an A mount. You only need multiple adapters when you are using still glass like C/Y mount or M42. A mount does seem to be the best solution for someone like me with an 18mm in Pl and the rest of the set in BNCR. I just have to pull the trigger

 

[Clint Lealos]

Here's some grabs from a photo shoot I did for my wife's handbag company, Namaste Inc. These were shot on Zeiss B-Speeds, between 1.4 and 2, ISO 800, 45 degree shutter, 5K, RG3/RC3. I didn't make any adjustments. The best part was that I did everything start to finish by myself in 2 hours! I lit the scene with 1 - old ass Altman 360 elliptical light 750W ($50 on craigslist), 1 - 600w open face, and 1 - table lamp I had no tripod, only 2 Red Volts, and a single 64Gb SSD mag. Yet, I still had everything I needed. That's freedom... Thanks Red.

 

[Nick Morrison]

It's my understanding with the A-mount you need to buy corresponding adapters for the back of your BNCR-mount lenses, bring the cost of the system up quite a bit. OTOH the Visual Products BNCR mount is Red approved as well and works natively with the K35s:

For still lenses you need individual adapters per lens, but for BNCR I believe it's one adapter you snap into the MOUNT (not the lens) and your A-Mount becomes fully BNCR compatible (I think that's how it works...)

 

[Werner Jauch]

Is there an approved fd mount for epic/scarlet?

FYI a guy called Ed Mika has made adapters for some of the FD tele lenses to work on EOS bodies. Apparently he now has kits to convert some other FD lenses to EOS mount (without glass elemenmts and keeping infinity focus). http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/edmika-launches-the-fdn-to-eos-adaptor/

 

[Nick Morrison]

FYI a guy called Ed Mika has made adapters for some of the FD tele lenses to work on EOS bodies. Apparently he now has kits to convert some other FD lenses to EOS mount (without glass elemenmts and keeping infinity focus). http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/09/edmika-launches-the-fdn-to-eos-adaptor/

Wow cool. He's the Leitax of FD!

 

[Guillaume Tremblay]

Did you guys had any experience with this adapter and it is true that it is certified by RED?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-FL...848?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a7722aed0

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Here's some grabs from a photo shoot I did for my wife's handbag company, Namaste Inc. These were shot on Zeiss B-Speeds, between 1.4 and 2, ISO 800, 45 degree shutter, 5K, RG3/RC3. I didn't make any adjustments. The best part was that I did everything start to finish by myself in 2 hours! I lit the scene with 1 - old ass Altman 360 elliptical light 750W ($50 on craigslist), 1 - 600w open face, and 1 - table lamp I had no tripod, only 2 Red Volts, and a single 64Gb SSD mag. Yet, I still had everything I needed. That's freedom... Thanks Red.

thanks!

 

[James T Mather]

Been a bit occupied with other stuff lately.

So glad to see all the good stuff happening here.

Ultimately i think this thread is about photography and ways to achieve the images one envision.
Sometimes old glass is the "right" way to get there. As masters and cookes are at other times.

It's all about what image you envision and how to get there!

Very true. Great thread and some lovely images. Kudos.

 

[Dave Blackham]

Ive been looking throughout he treads on Epics resolution and what I guess can be called a cameras visual signature. Im interested to see what we can do with Epic to emulated he look that Alexa and Ultra primes offer. Its a classic look but we still prefer the crispness that Epic offers but hope to get a little more character if thats what clients request. I know its just more than filtration but a couple of threads mention using a 1/4 soft filter and another suggest using a Digi Con 1 filter. Any views on this solution ? or given using Epic and Ultra primes what filtration could be used to get nearer the visual signature of Alexa ?

I have to say left to our own devices we prefer using Epic with either Leica R which does give a very pleasing image, it does have a very organic almost 3D look. We are also looking at using Super Baltar's and perhaps K 35 lenses to provide more character than some of the new very clean character lenses which as we see it offers much more interesting imagery.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Well some diffusion/lowcon filtering OR old glass will bring you a long way.

Haven't run any matchtests between Epic and Alexa, but as it looks I'll be part of a F65/Epic/Alexa/SI/R1/BMD test later this fall. I'll probably use that opportunity to look a bit into matching as well.
Would be nice to have the C500 in the soup as well, if possible.

But I am no longer geek-driven enough to do this on my own...
Epic is my tool of choice for better and worse...
I rather spend time befriending that, but of course, if someone pay me to geek for a limited period of time, I am all in.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

But, as I pointed out in a PM here where I was asked to send my favourite looks:

1:

Problem is that I don't use "looks"

I would send if I did, but matter of fact is that I mostly don't do anything after exposure, or just a slight S, if I am not going offline/online

I expose and light for the cam, and mostly make the "look" when I shoot, and shoot with a flat set cam

That way, I avoid noise and bad colors...

I don't have any general looks I use...

and #2

I mean, that's really one of the points of the "old glass" thread...

Do it optically!

That makes the best result for post, while digital pregrading just skews exposure.

Just my opinion, which I happen to think has some merit, and is pretty close to the workflows I have been enforcing and supervisinf for soon to be 48 hours of series for the Norwegian Broadcast corp and what I read about the workflows on the major. (and what I do myself)

I can count on very few fingers the number of setups that has been recorded with anything far from the camera-neutral setting and being posted far from those same settings.
Looks are generally made through lighting and composition (and choice of glass/filters), not through metadatatweeks.

It is all about exposing and lighting and coloring FOR the camera to get the image you want, instead of the uphill battle of trying to make the cam what it is not.
Which again unevitably will lead to noise and unwanted artefacts (I do not despise wanted artefacts. F. ex. a heavy underexposure can be a nice way to get quite rich and fat lowlight colors... )

It is a philosophical thingy, I admit.
But it comes from quite rigorous testing and failure.

Sorry if this is disappointing.


Cheers!

G

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Emultaing "looks" of film or any camera or scene, is a photographic skill, more than most other things, then post, VFX, grade, and the rest comes as an icing on the cake. Not the other way around...

Methinks...

'nough already...

 

[Dave Blackham]

Emultaing "looks" of film or any camera or scene, is a photographic skill, more than most other things, then post, VFX, grade, and the rest comes as an icing on the cake. Not the other way around...

Methinks...

'nough already...

Its certainly a skill achieving a requested look. What is also interesting is the visual signature of a lens appears much more apparent with clean high resolution cameras much more so than I thought it would be.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I made this just for this thread...

https://vimeo.com/50015182

 

[Nick Morrison]

But, as I pointed out in a PM here where I was asked to send my favourite looks:

1:

Problem is that I don't use "looks"

I would send if I did, but matter of fact is that I mostly don't do anything after exposure, or just a slight S, if I am not going offline/online

I expose and light for the cam, and mostly make the "look" when I shoot, and shoot with a flat set cam

That way, I avoid noise and bad colors...

I don't have any general looks I use...

and #2

I mean, that's really one of the points of the "old glass" thread...

Do it optically!

That makes the best result for post, while digital pregrading just skews exposure.

Just my opinion, which I happen to think has some merit, and is pretty close to the workflows I have been enforcing and supervisinf for soon to be 48 hours of series for the Norwegian Broadcast corp and what I read about the workflows on the major. (and what I do myself)

I can count on very few fingers the number of setups that has been recorded with anything far from the camera-neutral setting and being posted far from those same settings.
Looks are generally made through lighting and composition (and choice of glass/filters), not through metadatatweeks.

It is all about exposing and lighting and coloring FOR the camera to get the image you want, instead of the uphill battle of trying to make the cam what it is not.
Which again unevitably will lead to noise and unwanted artefacts (I do not despise wanted artefacts. F. ex. a heavy underexposure can be a nice way to get quite rich and fat lowlight colors... )

It is a philosophical thingy, I admit.
But it comes from quite rigorous testing and failure.

Sorry if this is disappointing.


Cheers!

G

Gunleik your in-camera philosophy is incredibly inspring. Bravo.

 

[krzysztof jankowski]

Did you guys had any experience with this adapter and it is true that it is certified by RED?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-FD-FL...848?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item3a7722aed0

It was approved by RED. You can call or email mr Chad Koeller from RED team to confirm.

I'm the producer.