How good are the RED lenses?

[Ketch Rossi]

Glass is not only what it produces and if some might be able or not to see a difference on the finished product.

Glass is what one chooses for his/hers work, based on qualities of the Glass, size, weight, and most importantly
Speed needed for each individual project.

Glass is a choice made by multiple variables by each Director, DP or simply INdie Filmmaker, some times based
on Purely Budgetary constraints, other times it is based on the likes of the individual for the look given by the particular Glass chosen.

Even so we are in an age of Digital Post Production Wonders, some, as my self, much prefer to get a Glass that immediately
gives a particular fill to the images.

For me RPP's, MP's and the New Leica Summilux-C give that look, neutral, sharp clear image to start with, vs. the warmer look of Cookes per say.

But we could go on for pages describing the differences from Glass to Glass, and I'm not talking about Chromatic Aberrations of
one vs. the other, Vignetting, and or any other so Called DEFECT, which is in Fact a particular Design, and intended to have those
Signatures by way of Design, I'm talking about the fill that each particular Glass gives its users, and how each particular user gets
used to it and prefers it to any other Glass, while other Users simply could care less, and just put any available Glass on their
camera, neither is wrong, this are simply choices of how the individual and or Production chooses to work.

 

[AnthonyFlores]

And the fallacy continues. A lens is a lens is a lens. Nothing really magical.

John, you should read more of David Mullen's thread -- he discusses lenses extensively. There IS a difference ... not magical, as others have noticed. But when you blow things up on the big screen a lot of the little things show. As Jeff said, probably not the audience (though they may notice the "look" -- for instance the super sharp look of No Country for Old Men, shot on MP's as David pointed out) ...

... But also, it's just the performance aspect. To have an optically perfect lens at 1.3, with also perfect mechanics and focus markings so that the set is efficient costs money. PERIOD. This is why the Leicas, MP's and Cooke 5i are all 20k plus -- because super fast, mechanically and optically perfect lenses cost money.

It's also why the RPP's are a great value. But keep in mind that an extra stop of speed is often hugely expensive. For instance, the price difference between Ultra Primes and Master Primes is nearly double for that extra speed -- and it's only worth it if you need it. Likewise people need to consider that if RPP's were 1.3 or 1.4 they would probably be $8-10,000 each ....

Also, as Ketch said -- when you get something like the Leica C's that are 1) As close to "optically flawless" as you can get ... 2) Mechanically perfect 3) Lightweight compared to other high-end cine lenses ... 4) Same exact size, weight and speed across all focal lengths ... and 5) you throw in Leica's/Panavision's legendary reputation in stills/cinema -- you get the most premium lens in the world. And you of course pay for it.

Still, for most people T1.9 is enough speed -- 2.0 lenses like the Cooke S4's have been used to shoot countless great features ... and that makes the RPP's a great value.

Then, when you throw in the improved focus markings that Ketch worked out with Duclos, that will fix any issues with performance on a real set, then you have the best value of any cinema lens out there.

Anthony

 

[AnthonyFlores]

Also, as others have noticed, some of it is personal preference. Some people love Master Primes -- I think they are lovely but prefer the slightly warmer look of Cookes and how they look on the actors. And their focus fall off is pleasing to my eye. MP's feel a little more "sterile" to me ....

But it's all preference and I would probably have trouble picking them out of a lineup -- though I love the look of pretty much any film I've seen shot with Cookes.

In a perfect world I would have three sets of lenses -- Leica C's as the ultimate and also great mobile cine lens, Cooke 5i's for when I want the "Cooke look" or when DP's request it, and a set of RPP's with the new focus markings for everything else. That will cover pretty much everything.

Anthony

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I've heard people on this forum complain vehemently about less expensive zooms breathing, yet they are also very keen to use still lenses in their motion work- which always undermines their credibility with regard to the lens snobbery-- we all have opinions .

Well I think I may fall into that camp.

Its a budget thing though, not some conditional insensitivity to images.

I like shooting, so I'd rather shoot with DSLR primes than not shoot.

Also, I get paid to shoot, not to own lenses.

Budgets being what they are I hve to compromise- and a good set of still primes allows me to get work I'd have to pas up on rented cine lenses.

In other words a business, not a creative decision.

If I owned a good set of cine lenses, I'd be inclined to price them for rentals as aggressively as possible just so I could shoot with them more often. It makes my day easier and more pleasant.

I also like the results better. I like my images to have no breathing, and to hold backfocus during zooms and all sorts of other things.

That's a creative decision to compromise business in order to achieve some artistic satisfaction. The only business benefit is speed on set: if I am shooting cine lenses my crew and I can cut takes from almost every set up with motion.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The optics on the RPPs are on a par with the other top Cine lenses. The "look" is more Zeiss than Cooke, I consider the Ultra Primes the RPPs closest cousin. They are large and heavy compared to some other options. Excellent bang for the buck. Focus markings are too few for many pullers, Duclos mod is the fix if that's an issue for you.

The RPZ 18-85 is a big lens, not much fun for hand held but fine on sticks. I agree with the notion of renting first before buying as the best way to form your own opinion.

Cheers - #19

 

[Stephen Strangways]

While there are certainly many optical differences in lenses, I'm surprised to see so many people mention the Cookes are "warmer," here on this forum and all over the 'net as 325,000 Google hits reveal.

There is no doubt they could very well be, but in this day in age of digital capture and digital intermediates, are people actually concerned about the colour balance of a lens, and/or have that many people actually used Cooke lenses and can see the difference? Or is it just one of those things that has taken on a life of its own and will get repeated over and over so much everyone believes it must be true and begins quoting it as their own opinion?

I'm genuinely interested, not being snarky in case any of the above came across that way at all. I came across an article recently which has made me take a second look at many opinions, statistics, and "facts" I see floating around the 'net:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/18/petscol081810.DTL

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I am as concerned about the lens charreacteristics - if I have the choice -as with the lighting. Even though stuff is "digital", light still isn't... -

 

[Eythan Holladay]

My .02: I have a pretty respectable set of Nikon glass, primes and a zooms.

That said I am about to pull the trigger on the 18-85 (or a set of RPPs) simply based on the mechanical properties of the lens. I honestly like still lens look well enough, but my compromises have always come in the form of focusing or other mechanical properties.

I think Alexander nailed it with "if I am shooting cine lenses my crew and I can cut takes from almost every set up with motion."

To me, that diffrence alone makes "cine" lenses pretty "magical" -

 

[AnthonyFlores]

While there are certainly many optical differences in lenses, I'm surprised to see so many people mention the Cookes are "warmer," here on this forum and all over the 'net as 325,000 Google hits reveal.

There is no doubt they could very well be, but in this day in age of digital capture and digital intermediates, are people actually concerned about the colour balance of a lens, and/or have that many people actually used Cooke lenses and can see the difference? Or is it just one of those things that has taken on a life of its own and will get repeated over and over so much everyone believes it must be true and begins quoting it as their own opinion?

I'm genuinely interested, not being snarky in case any of the above came across that way at all. I came across an article recently which has made me take a second look at many opinions, statistics, and "facts" I see floating around the 'net:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2010/08/18/petscol081810.DTL

Hi Stephen,

Not sure where it comes from -- or if it's rooted in science or subjective interpretations. But I know I've heard the Cookes "warm" thing many times.

But then again, I've also heard that about Leicas. Subjective phrases like "warm" ... "creamy" ... etc. For instance, check what Shane Hurlbut says about Leica still lenses compared to others:

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/07/03/leica-r-mount-lenses-for-the-canon-hdslrs/

Interesting that both Cooke and Leica are the two main lens brands claiming to have their own "look" ... and both use that expression (the "Cooke look" and the "Leica look") in their marketing.

Maybe it's BS from a scientific, pixel-peeping perspective but I know that I love so much of what I've seen shot with those two lens brands.

I guess lenses are a very emotional thing And since I don't have an extra $200,000 laying around unless or until I get funding -- I'm very happy Red produces a set that gets you 95% there for a small fraction of the price.

Anthony

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

While there are certainly many optical differences in lenses, I'm surprised to see so many people mention the Cookes are "warmer," here on this forum and all over the 'net as 325,000 Google hits reveal.

There is no doubt they could very well be, but in this day in age of digital capture and digital intermediates, are people actually concerned about the colour balance of a lens...

Sometimes things don't get color corrected.

Most of these lenses have a very slight color casts. Cooke is stronger than most to my eye- but its still very slight compared to what you see added in post quite often today.

Also, the warmth of a Cooke lens is not just the color temperature. The warmth is also in the way focus rolls off, and the amount of sharpness in the image.

Cooke's definitely have a look. Leica's have a look. Zeiss, Fujinon, Canon, Angeniuex...

Lenses have looks.

Can't you tell the difference between a prime and a zoom set to the same focal length? How about a Zeiss 50mm ZE versus a Canon 50mm f/1.2 L series?

I find it sort of hilarious that I seem to be the main proponent of the notion that lenses matter in this thread, and I am still learning to see and apply the look, and other properties of a lens in film making.

Coming back to the choice of lenses in the face of DI and other post work that will alter the work.

What I as a cinematographer create with light and lens has a profound impact on what can be done in DI, and it suffuses the character of the final product. No matter how extensive the coloring and compositing, what you do on set- every choice you make- matters. The quality of light chosen, the way the lens brings light to the sensor, and how your medium renders tonality.

Someone spoke here about how if the audience notices what you are doing with a lens your film is in real trouble. That is true in so far as you can not normally make a film about cinematic technique.

Think of figure skating. Millions of people watch it, especially the Olympic ladies. I am willing to bet that 99% of fans can't tell a double axel from a triple toe loop, much less understand edge control. In fact I think a lot of guys watching it are just enjoying women in scanty outfits and appeasing their significant other. It matters though, and you can tell. You just don't understand why skater A looks better to you than skater B.

Films are exactly that way. People don't understand the dramatic impact a 1st AC can have on a finished picture. Or how the dolly grip helps create all the subtle motions that take you into a new world.

Our craft matters. I know I am laboring over details audiences will never be cognizant of. Just like a figure skater struggles with edge control. If I do my job properly audiences will just be completely in the story and hopefully never notice that they are being affected by the camera s much as the actors and the writing.

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

It's simple, you choose the instrument for your job. If you want to carve a big stripe in some wood you don't take the smaller sized tool for the job? Even if you could make the same size as the big instrument, it would never be the same.

If you guys want to fool yourself and be lazy believing that it doesn't matter what you use, then so be it. For the ones who truly cares about their profession, tries to create near perfection.

(Want to include that I'm not trying to talk down to anyone who doesn't have the luxury of using all kinds of lenses. Use what you can and make the best of it, but make no mistake.... a Nissan is a Nissan... a Porsche is a Porsche and a Ferrari is a Ferrari - they all drive, but differently and in the end it's what the driver make of it... Although sometimes if he's really good he probably wishes he had a Ferrari ).

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Also, the warmth of a Cooke lens is not just the color temperature. The warmth is also in the way focus rolls off, and the amount of sharpness in the image.

I would never have thought to apply "warmth" to describe the amount of sharpness and the way focus rolls off on a lens.

That's the problem I have with many of these discussions. The terminology used is so vague and wishy-washy as to be virtually meaningless, especially when it becomes impossible to tell if a person is stating their own preferences from what they have observed, or if they are simply aping what others have said with no understanding of it.

When you truly understand what is going on in a lens, you are able to properly quantify the real differences, and ignore the imaginary fluff coming from a lens maker's marketing brochure or being bandied about the internet.

For example, Zeiss for years had a target MTF cutoff point for each range of lenses they designed. This search for high MTF led to lenses that performed well on test charts, but had variable contrast and colour balance. They worked with coatings not to balance colour, but to improve contrast and microcontrast together.

At least, that's what they did in Germany. Do the Kyocera-made Zeiss lenses from 90's share the same design philosophy? Do the Cosina-made Zeiss lenses share the same design philosophy? Not necessarily.

Leica, on the other hand, attempted to boost microcontrast at the expense of overall contrast, that leads to soft overall tones, but very sharp fine details. This is what lead to the "3D look" of Leica lenses that many people talk about. But once they start talking about that in terms of a lens designed and made in Japan by Panasonic in the 21st century, very little beyond a name licensing agreement and a passing design approval tie it to Leica and their old design philosophy.

Cooke's website states "Cooke lenses for a smooth roundness and dimensionality to the picture and for the velvety skin tones that flatter." and "“Cooke Look” - a sharp, subtle, smooth rendering that provides dimensionality and high contrast, and pleases the eye." which sounds an awful lot like Leica's approach of boosting microcontrast at the expense of overall contrast. Of course, that's all just marketing fluff until you point a lens at some test charts and see what it's actually doing.

In the 20th century, Minolta was well known for balancing contrast and colour between their lenses using coatings, and they picked up several tricks from Leica regarding microcontrast vs. contrast during the time the companies worked together. Canon has always been all over the map with every lens they designed and rarely show any consistency at all.

Most of this has changed with the advent of lenses designed for digital. Now, the focus of coatings is not to carefully match colour and contrast, focusing mostly on the front lens surface. It's now mostly about coating as many rear surfaces as possible, to avoid reflection and flare from the sensor.

The problem is that when these companies were actually designing, building, and testing all of their own lenses, it was possible to assume any lens with their name on it followed that philosophy. With modern outsourcing and what can best be termed badge engineering, you must be careful to judge each lens on its own, rather than relying on oft-repeated and easy to remember generalizations based on what those companies were doing 30 years ago.

 

[Steve Das]

....sounds an awful lot like Leica's approach of boosting microcontrast at the expense of overall contrast. Of course, that's all just marketing fluff until you point a lens at some test charts and see what it's actually doing...

...great post..thank you for it....could you elaborate on the terms
microcontrast vs. overall contrast....

 

[Stephen Strangways]

Overall contrast is what most people mean when they say just contrast. You could also say global contrast, though macro contrast is probably the clearest term. Macro contrast is the contrast range of your entire image, from blackest black to whitest white. A lens with poor contrast could have horrible overall flare, raising all your blacks to a milky level. Lenses that poor are quite rare, though, and even if they were it's a problem easily fixes in post.

Micro contrast is the contrast in the file details, the ability to render even slight differences in contrast between adjacent areas. It's that very fine detail that makes fine textures seem sharp. Only a good lens will deliver good micro contrast, and it's very hard to fix in post.

Think of a wide shot of a bedroom, where the blanket on the bed has a fine pattern/thread on it. A lens with low/smooth macro contrast and high micro contrast will tend towards lighter shadows and less harsh highlights, while the details on the blanket will be rendered sharply and clearly, with lots of contrast between light and dark pattern areas.
A lens with high macro contrast and low micro contrast will tend towards deep dark shadows and fully blown-out highlights, while the light and dark details on the blanket will all tend towards the same grey and lose details and sharpness.

Macro contrast is quite easy to adjust in post if you started with a half-way decent lens, so it mattered more in the film days than it does now. Good micro contrast is hard to fake/recover/enhance in post unless you start with a lens that is quite good at delivering it to the sensor in the first place.

 

[Eric Gavlinski]

So the 2/3 uses mini primes? Will there be an adapter to use PL glass?

 

[Michael Olsen]

So the 2/3 uses mini primes? Will there be an adapter to use PL glass?

Unless something has changed, all RED lens mounts are interchangeable and can be used on any Epic or Scarlet camera.

For example...

Use an EF mount on the Epic-X. Then swap it for a PL mount. Then take that PL mount and put it on the 2/3" Interchangeable. And put the mini-prime mount on the Epic-S for some vignetting fun.

Mix and match.

 

[Alexander Ibrahim]

I would never have thought to apply "warmth" to describe the amount of sharpness and the way focus rolls off on a lens.

Organic, or smooth.

As opposed to cold, technical, sharp.

That's the problem I have with many of these discussions. The terminology used is so vague and wishy-washy as to be virtually meaningless,

Once upon a time I'd be offended.

I think that is a function of natural language. Its certainly more than occasionally frustrating or humorous that words have more than one meaning.

As in the example above... you clearly are accustomed to using the word "warm" to refer to color temperature, and ostensibly to actual temperature.

To be perfectly logical, the colors we describe as "cool" have higher color temperatures- therefore they should be called "warmer."

Of course the terminology we use for color temperature didn't evolve from any science but from artistic appreciation. The things we think of as warm... sunny days, fires, heated metal are all very red colors... colors with a low color temperature. Colors associated with physical cold are blue- a rainy day, the deep sea, twilight movies. (I'll be here all week) In essence these words are symbols for how warmth and coldness make us feel.

Then there are the uses of the word warm that have nothing to do with either technical sense. Warm as in affectionate and close in personal relations, as opposed to cold which means callous and distant.

You go on to make some valid but very cold statements about lenses.

As a cinematographer I must choose lenses in part based on how they'll influence story telling. That sometimes means eschewing my engineering knowledge and reaching into another set of sensibilities- artistic ones driven by emotions, senses and intuition with the terms that go with them.

A smooth roll off is "warm" because it better integrates the in focus and out of focus areas of the frame. Also, when you roll focus from one subject to another that focus change is more transparent to the audience. All this creates greater intimacy.

Now... my background is in the physical sciences. My university studies were computer science, electrical engineering, physics and mathematics. Its VERY easy to fall to temptation and want to bring technical perfection to every show.

But film making is science in the service of humanity.

As a couple of quick examples:

The Tudors seems to have been tailor made for Cooke S4 lenses. (They shot with Panavision Primo on F900 and Genesis)

TRON:Legacy screams for sharpness and precision- perfection is a theme in the movie. I'd have selected Arri Master Primes. (Of course it also calls for anamorphic... so it wouldn't surprise me if it was also shot on Primos.)