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 :)

Lens Projection and Real Life images

Great thread.

One of my regular 'real world' tests of a lens is to put a subject in a low light indoors environment with a very bright large window source directly behind them. Expose for the interior subject and watch what happens to the black/ flare levels and overall sharpness. Do this test and you will see the magic of the Master Primes over Superspeeds.
If the results of doing this test dont encourage creativity then you would be best off buying the Yugo Primes.

This will be my first test with the RPP primes.

Best
John

Chater Camera - San Francisco
 
FILMCOMAN said:
Jim,
Any chance of seeing some examples of footage shot with RPP's ? This is the first time I have purchased a set of primes without seeing them or shooting with them. I obviously have the utmost confidence in RED. My experience with my camera has been phenominal and I am hoping for more of the same with the RPPs.
Click to expand...
Red must have extensive test results for all its lens prototypes; I can only guess that it is reluctant to make that information available even with the usual disclaimers in case the production lenses don't consistently reach the standard set by the prototypes? Or are there other reasons for not making their test results available? Independent verification?

Certainly its unwise to purchase anything unseen and untested. There are certain Red items which in hindsight I wish I did not purchase....
 
Most of the shops I worked in had an autocollimator with a swingmount on the micrometer end. This alowed one to view the lens off axis to the reticle/light source. This showed what the lens would do with light coming in off axis. Another tool we used was a very finely etched ground glass mounted behind the lens that had a microcope behind it mounted on a x/z axis mount. Sort of like a lens projector in reverse. Of course both of these and any other optical testing tools required experience of use to be able to compare what you were looking at opposed to any other lens.
 
jamesedwelland said:
Red must have extensive test results for all its lens prototypes; I can only guess that it is reluctant to make that information available even with the usual disclaimers in case the production lenses don't consistently reach the standard set by the prototypes? Or are there other reasons for not making their test results available? Independent verification?

Certainly its unwise to purchase anything unseen and untested. There are certain Red items which in hindsight I wish I did not purchase....
Click to expand...

Imagine for a minute that production RPPs just arrived and we have been a wee bit busy. I'm quite sure that many images will be posted by those that have been sent their lenses. I also think that there will be extensive comparison testing coming soon. Plenty of time for you to decide. Plus, you had many people give their comments after seeing them at the Reduser party. And... Izzy was shot on a prototype RPP 100.

Jim
 
Pawel Achtel said:
Michael, you seem to be mixing up resolution and coverage (image circele). :nono: It depends on the sensor.

Which sensor are you talking about? The 5k S35 Mysterium-X or the 6k FF35 Monstro?

All MPs will cover full 5k frame on the Mysterium-X sensor, especially in 2.40:1 aspect ratio. What they will not cover is FF35 (the Monstro sensor), which is actually 6k. Some of the shorter focal length MPs will also not cover 5k area on the 6k Monstro sensor, but most will. :thumbup:
Click to expand...

Pawel
I totally understand the image circle vs the sensor size discussion and issues. My point is that the MP, S4 and Ultraprimes were designed to cover 35mm motion picture film in all their common and some uncommon formats and aspect ratios. When or if a new image size becomes popular that is larger than what they are designed for they will no longer perform as designed. Maybe stating the obvious, but were still talking what exists today vs what may exist in the future in a buying context.
 
Jannard said:
Imagine for a minute that production RPPs just arrived and we have been a wee bit busy. I'm quite sure that many images will be posted by those that have been sent their lenses. I also think that there will be extensive comparison testing coming soon. Plenty of time for you to decide. Plus, you had many people give their comments after seeing them at the Reduser party. And... Izzy was shot on a prototype RPP 100.

Jim
Click to expand...

I guess its just frustrating from a purely consumer point of view that test results from your design process are not available, though I can appreciate some valid reasons why you might wish to decline to publish them at this stage. With your wise words in the back of my mind about the state of the economy I definitely need a bit more than the various casual comments about the quality of the lenses before purchase. Patience; yes. But you are dangling the carrot!:)
 
Michael Bravin said:
Pawel
I totally understand the image circle vs the sensor size discussion and issues. My point is that the MP, S4 and Ultraprimes were designed to cover 35mm motion picture film in all their common and some uncommon formats and aspect ratios. When or if a new image size becomes popular that is larger than what they are designed for they will no longer perform as designed. Maybe stating the obvious, but were still talking what exists today vs what may exist in the future in a buying context.
Click to expand...

Evin Grant made a (very nice) comparison here:

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=409560&postcount=4

As you can see, most, if not all, "standard" S35 lenses will fully cover 5k of the Mysterium-X chip.:thumbsup:
 
That is correct Pawel... alot of lenses will cover the 5k circle, but the quality of the image at the edges on glass designed around a 28mm circle will most likely be degraded to some degree.
 
ccamera said:
Great thread.

One of my regular 'real world' tests of a lens is to put a subject in a low light indoors environment with a very bright large window source directly behind them. Expose for the interior subject and watch what happens to the black/ flare levels and overall sharpness. Do this test and you will see the magic of the Master Primes over Superspeeds.
If the results of doing this test dont encourage creativity then you would be best off buying the Yugo Primes.

This will be my first test with the RPP primes.

Best
John

Chater Camera - San Francisco
Click to expand...


I dig this! Can you please explain how Master Primes vs Superspeeds behave on this? Any other lenses?
 
Think of crafting an image like cooking. Basil is basil. Well no. Fresh basil tastes different than dried basil. (hell thai basil tastes different than standard.) But either way you get basil in the dish right. With all those others flavors in there, who's gonna tell.

The reality is, the difference between TGIFridays and a 4 star is that attention to detail. Only the best, or better said right, ingredients combine with each other to make something unforgettable. Now, you can have a meal at TGIF and be satisfied. Hell I have done it countless times, but when you love what you do and taste how good it can be once all that care goes in, there is no changing you pallet back.

So yes, throw the S4's next to the Ultra primes and shoot the same movie and many people will still be satisfied. But are you?
 
Jarred Land said:
That is correct Pawel... alot of lenses will cover the 5k circle, but the quality of the image at the edges on glass designed around a 28mm circle will most likely be degraded to some degree.
Click to expand...

BINGO! Thanks for that short sweet succinct comment Jarred. Lenses are designed with their purpose in mind so that the design can be optimized. Size Weight Costs Performance etc. Just cause something "covers" doesn't speak to its performance at the extremes.
 
Shawn Nelson said:
I dig this! Can you please explain how Master Primes vs Superspeeds behave on this? Any other lenses?
Click to expand...

Wide open on the Superspeeds you see a lot of flare in the blacks, a bleed on the high contrast edges that create distortion and an overall softening of sharpness caused by the flare and the lenses being softer wide open. Do a focus rack and you magnify the appearance of these anomalies.
Im not saying that this is necessarily a problem. Applied correctly they are a creative opportunity.

But the Master Primes at T1.3 present another creative opportunity and that is their ability to create the cleanest, sharpest image possible in an low light situation with high contrast and almost no breathing.

Even though our Red One cameras works all the time weve seen a tremendous resistance in our market to Red lenses. Weve never once been asked for the Red 18-85mm zoom. Strange. But we get asked all the time for the Cooke 18-100 and Optimo 17-80mm. I actively talk up the original 18-50mm zoom because of its great close focus capabilities. Its the principal reason our clients rent it. This week we are sending it out with a Phantom camera for two months on a natural history project that needs this ability.

If the Red Primes are being seen to match or exceed the sharpness of Master Primes at T1.8 on a projector, at a quarter of the price, that is quite an accomplishment. But unlike our Reds we wont buy them without testing them on a camera. Hopefully those tests will capture our imagination too. Then they will sell and rent like crazy.

John

Chater Camera Inc
San Francisco
 
ccamera said:
But the Master Primes at T1.3 present another creative opportunity and that is their ability to create the cleanest, sharpest image possible in an low light situation with high contrast and almost no breathing.
Click to expand...

At T1.9 and below the MP's start to fall off progressively quite a bit till T1.3 where the center is significantly brighter than the edges. That's not always a bad thing creatively but still worth noting is you plan on using them wide open.
 
"If you sit behind the lab equipment and see the numbers flash on the displays,
look at the graphs being printed and measurements being generated, you cannot but feel impressed
by the sophistication and expertise required for a truly in-depth review of a lens.

A zoomlens from company A is fully dissected and analyzed and in fact gets a bad note, but gets high
praise from the press and in the many websites from photographers. Then we have to ask ourselves
the question about the validity and relevance and the lab results and the popular opinions.
It is my experience that a lens test that shows results that portray the true capabilities and characteristics
of a lens is a quite laborious task that cannot not be done without the use of sophisticated equipment.
I am therefore inclined to say that when there is a difference between the results of the optical lab and
the popular press and popular opinions, the lab results have priority.

But one can also argue that lenses are used by photographers and that, when they are satisfied with
the performance in real life situations, one can safely claim that the lens is good enough.
This position is closely related to the basic principle of democracy and the law of opinion polls:
when a thousand persons say that A is the best, then we have to conclude that A is best by popular vote.
This is the view of the marketing department of many photographic companies: if it sells by big numbers,
then it is a good product.

A lab test may show lens decentring, focus shift, chromatic aberrations, flare, mechanical defects and so on,
but as long as the user is happy, there is no issue. So it seems.

The counter argument might be that most photographers take pictures that are not too demanding on the lens
and that they will never discover the defects or lack the knowledge to see the defects.
A major role in this respect can be attributed to advertising and the band wagon effect.
If advertising claims that a lens has superior qualities, the press quite often is inclined to accept this claim
and when their own reviews do not blatantly contradict the claim is taken as true.

As illustration I can point to reviews in the press of the new 20+ MB Canon 1Ds MIII, where you will often see
the statement that the extremely high resolution of the sensor can only be exploited when you use high resolution
lenses like the Canon 2.5/50mm or even the new Canon 1.2/50mm. The 2.5/50mm is without any doubt a very capable lens,
but it certainly not the best lens in the Canon stable for high-res imagery. Here one falls into the trap of assuming that a macro lens
must have superior resolution above other lenses by definition. And by repeating this statement over and over again,
readers do assume that it is true, because everybody tells the same story.

It is quite difficult, if not impossible, to get a reliable assessment of the true capabilities and characteristics of a lens. "

From a still photo lens testing article where you can read more at:

Erwin Puts: Lens testing and lens design in the digital age>>
 
I have always said to my clients: "No one shoots movies of test charts". A lot of the minor geometric distortions that are easily seen on a lens projector will never be noticed in normal cinematography.

At the same time, the lens' ability to render a three-dimensional look, which is very important, will not be seen at all on the reticle projection. Nor can you judge the lens' rendering of color. And only with a trained eye can you judge contrast, and then only in a relative sense.

But the lens test projector is still the best tool available for quality control of lenses. There is still no MTF tester that can test the entire image plane at once (AFAIK).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top