lenses for red raven

[Daniel Stilling]

Sorry but your definition of "close " ifs different than mine. 20mm(raven)/25mm(S35) width is 80% (or 75% depending which way you are calculating) If that's "very close".......
The diagonal is even more spread out(because of the roughly 2:1 aspect ratio of the Raven vs 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio of the S35) 22mm diagonal Raven vs 30mm diagonal S35. If that's "very close" to you.... That's fine- your definition ;-)
And it will work fine- with the right lenses ..... just pick them carefully....

I understand that your job is scrutinizing lenses, mounts, pixels and so much more, and that is absolutely excellent that you do that, and I mean it.
But just as with lenses when you check them on charts and find out the technical differences between them, also this sensor size issue is plagued with the same dichotomy: one thing is to sit down and calculate numbers on a piece of paper (or on a screen) and another is to use the tools day in, day out. With lenses, realistically you might find huge differences on the bench, but in real life, unless you stress them, and that's where the good lenses shine, you might not find any remarkable difference between a cheap and an expensive one.
The same is this sensor size issue: 20% sounds like a lot, but in real practical use, you will never know the difference. It's not like super 16 where you'll need an 8mm lens to get wides. Not at all. Just move your camera back a few inches and you'll be OK. That is my assessment of "not that different".

 

[Daniel Stilling]

I don't know what to make of your post Daniel. I saw your previous similar post in another thread but didn't reply there.

There are so many formats out in the wild now, with various sensor sizes, that it's perfectly normal to try to find a way to relate one thing to another. The whole concept of crop factor comes from the fact that not all sensors are 36x24mm, or Full Frame (yup, this relates to all photography). It's just another way of saying—just like you point out— that with a smaller sensor "the curtains will be pulled".

It's perfectly fine that your standard is S35. If you grew up only shooting that size, slapping a 24mm or 35mm will mean something very specific to you. But today, someone starts out with a GH2 and then uses a Sony or Canon full frame… sooner or later they get introduced to the concept of crop factor. And whether you like it or not, it invariably goes back to Full Frame as the common denominator.

At the end of the day it just goes back to this: people hear of the new camera/sensor and want to make sense of what they hear. Trying to establish the S35 size as the new 1:1 will not help people who don't already know exactly what we're talking about.

What rubs me the wrong way about your post is that you already know this. You know why people refer to FF and that it is the universal standard. What's up with the condescending nature of your introduction in your post?

Saying a "35mm is a 35mm" would not have helped someone buying the BMCC with EF-mount back in the day.

if I came through heavy handed or condescending, I apologize. I'm just exhausted about this issue.
The fact is that probably 98% of the movies you have watched in your life, were shot in Super 35. How can the 1:1 be FF? For the people that are starting in cinematography, using FF is more confusing than S35. Even to this day, when any movie is shot in a larger format than S35, it gets a lot of attention for being different, out of the norm. Chivos new movie for ex.
So when someone new hears that the Raven is a 1.8 crop, what do they think? That to get an image comparable to what he sees in the movies he'll need something almos double as wide and that's just not right.
Just because a 5D can do it and it's close to the largest format, doesn't make it the standard. How many movies have you watched that are shot with the 5D start to end?

 

[Ben Richardson]

Thought this might be useful in the ongoing "crop factor" FOV conversation.

Common lenses on 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 spherical super 35mm (about as defacto a pair of standards as you could ask for) compared with a few other common film and digital formats.

Camera gate/sensor sizes collated from a number of sources – if anyone has better data, please let me know. Formats use longest edge for crop. S35mm 1.85:1 and 2.39:1 numbers (in blue) are common cine prime focal lengths (Cooke S4 mainly, plus a couple of other common lengths), other focal lengths are calculated for the same field of view, so may not precisely match an existing common focal length.

In short, 2.39:1 Raven is a little smaller (needs a shorter lens) than 2-perf 35mm, Raven 1.85:1 a little smaller still. Nothing you couldn't work with.

** Anamorphic 35mm is calculated with a 2x frame width for simplicity. In reality the horizontal is half this width (21.95mm), with the lens providing the 2x horizontal multiplier. The focal lengths in the chart are accurate.

** Open gate and other full sensor/neg sizes left in for reference only. Didn't work out lens equivalents since they aren't common delivery aspect ratios.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Daniel, we will be beating a dead horse if we continue this, but since I don't like to leave questions hanging here is a short response.

The fact is that probably 98% of the movies you have watched in your life, were shot in Super 35. How can the 1:1 be FF?

Yes, of course. But FF is the standard because crop factor doesn't adhere to cinema specifically, but rather photography in general.

So when someone new hears that the Raven is a 1.8 crop, what do they think?

Well, they should think that to get the similar angle of view of a 50mm FF frame, they will need a 28mm EF mount lens. Because that is the definition, also according to Wikipedia, in most cases. In other words, more often right than not.

I hear and understand your argument: this is Reduser and we do cinema. S35 is our standard and in this context the Raven crop is much smaller. But since 'crop factor' already has been defined long ago—to apply to all arts of photography— the confusion only starts when we use different frame sizes as reference interchangeably..

If you like to stress the fact that Raven is very close to native cinema with its sensor size that's fine by me, but referencing to FF certainly can't be attributed to lack of knowledge or being wrong.

I think we understand each other. If that is the case, no need to dig further.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Thought this might be useful in the ongoing "crop factor" FOV conversation.

Nice. So let's use S35 as the standard. To quickly get the equivalent Raven-lens just do this: divide by ten, double the value and subtract. It's much easier than it sounds:

I'm thinking I need the FoV of an 85mm --> divide by ten = 8.5 --> double it to 17 and subtract: 85-17 = 68mm. (applicable to all FLs =)
I'm thinking I need the FoV of an 50mm --> divide by ten = 5 --> double it to 10 and subtract: 50-10 = 40mm.

Only accounting for field of view…

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

I don't want to be rude but.

Red Digital Cinema Camera Company.

Raven is a cinema camera, therefore cinematography standard should be applied. Speaking of Raven in photography standard makes it look bad.
The cinema standard lens set is often 18-25-35-50-85-100 applied to 35mm academic (though some manufactured have their coverage extended to fit the emergence of Red 7 years ago.

There is no crop factor, the lens should be spoken of with its inner specifications. Focal lenght, coverage, and after that the the size of the sensor. The field of view is something the user's experiences create.
The fact newcomers need a reference to what they know is a proof a 5D'ness. Before 5D/1D, we were talking cinema standard.
Speaking of crop factor make you look amateurish to the eye of many people.

 

[Alvise Tedesco]

This should help you guys figure out your lenses. Plug in RED Epic 4k and thats Raven sensor size. Plug in whatever focal length you want. Based on that, there is quite a difference between the Raven sensor size and M 4/3 (AF100).

http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

Wrong. Plug in Red Epic Dragon 4K, not Epic MX

 

[Will Wernick]

sigma 18-35 f1.8 best bang for your buck of any lens I've ever owned. Sharp as hell, and has a beautiful look.

 

[darren scott]

Wrong. Plug in Red Epic Dragon 4K, not Epic MX

The thing says RED EPIC 4k HD...there's no RED Epic dragon 4k option (only 6k). Also If you actually clicked the link and took the time to read you'd see that the RED EPIC 4k HD sensor dimensions are the same size as the Raven sensor.

 

[Daniel Stilling]

I think we understand each other. If that is the case, no need to dig further.

i disagree. I don't think you understand me. You insist on using an irrelevant standard in Cinema.
It's like wanting to use an aviation standard for speed (knots) for driving, because planes go faster...
but you're right, no need to beat the dead horse anymore. You can, I'm done...

 

[Mike Garrick]

I guess for a lot newcomers this may seem strange , what worked in stills land isn't referrenced in motion picture land.

Hence I have never heard a Alexa being explained as having 1.5 crop .

Just like stills, motion picture has there own standards & terms 16, s16, s35, 3 perf , ana, IMAX, 65mm, etc, etc.

Learn these standards , you will need them because without an understanding of them your ability to progress & understand this industry will be limited by your own vocabulary or lack of it.

The day you stop learning in this profession is the day your dead.

PS I guess the confusion is creeping in because we are talking largely still lenses on a motion picture body.

 

[Aaron Lochert]

Full Frame being 1:1 crop factor IS the universal standard for crop factor because real cinema guys don't talk about crop factor.

And if we were to use crop factor in the cinema world, what's wrong with FF being the 1:1 size? Why don't we just let it be 1:1, but the "golden" number we're really aiming for is 1.45. There's this stigma that letting FF be 1:1 somehow means it's superior. "Oh, no! My ideal number has a decimal!"

All this crop-stuff is really only useful at the time of kitting out a set of lenses, anyway. Okay so Raven will be a little tighter than S35. Knock off the top telephoto lens and add another wider one on the bottom. Done.

Also, why are so many people to jump in on saying S35 is the standard? Lots and lots of movies were shot with an academy gate. And they weren't any less "cinematic" than S35 films. Academy film gate is 22mm wide. Raven being just shy of that at 20.48mm wide isn't going to harm us in any way. Creative people will make beautiful images with this camera.

I think y'all are making a big deal about nothing.

I don't want to be rude but.

Red Digital Cinema Camera Company.

Not that I disagree with you that crop factor is silly in a cinema context, but to be completely fair, DSMC does stand for Digital Still and Motion Camera.

 

[Ben Graham]

A reference to FF sills FOV is only relevant for stills photographers who are transitioning into cinematography and not using a full frame sensor. I don't see the point of the classic FOV debate when there are eos mount lenses to cover every imaginable FOV all the way down to 8mm.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Goodness, so many numbers and concepts thrown around here, with very little base on the reality of day to day shooting...
Sorry, but this constant comparison to FF is not just wrong, it shows a lack of knowledge in what motion picture cameras have been for a very long time.
I don't recall ant DP's running around, freaking out that their cameras have a 1.5 crop factor compared to cameras from the stills guys, nor have I seen petitions to Arri, complaining on how come the film goes through the gate vertically, when they could design a camera going horizontally so they could have a FF exposed negative. (there are such cameras, but that's beside the point)
Guys, Super 35 is the golden standard in motion pictures. Forget the 5D's and FF for a minute.
The Raven is very close to Super 35. Treat it as such and you'll be fine. a 16 or 18mm prime is usually the widest you'll go in S35 (not counting specialty shots, like fisheye for ex.) if you have an 11-16, you're more than covered.
Also, an 18mm is the same lens, no matter what camera or sensor you pair it to. So saying a 24mm is for FF, then it'll become 45mm, it's ludicrous. The 24 is still the 24. you are just seeing a little less of it.
Imagine that you are standing 10ft away from a glass door. you are looking outside. You see the furniture right outside the door, trees in the distance. now, pull the curtains closed a little bit. What you see is still the same, you just see a little less of it on the sides. so the "lens" is still the same, you just see a little less. now walk towards the glass door. You just went "wider" so the relationship between the angles of what you see outside now is different. That's a change in your focal length. The amount of curtains that you pull won't change the relationship between the objects you see. Therefore a 50 is a 50 is a 50.
Besides all of this, the difference between S35 and the Ravens sensor is very small. Unless you find yourself all the time saying: I wish this 50mm was a 44mm, you are not going to have any issues out in the real world.

difference to s35 is small? You did not fork out good $$ on S35 or FULL Frame Superwides. They should have designed MFT Mount instead ...

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

A reference to FF sills FOV is only relevant for stills photographers who are transitioning into cinematography and not using a full frame sensor. I don't see the point of the classic FOV debate when there are eos mount lenses to cover every imaginable FOV all the way down to 8mm.

Better get used to it, sensors are getting bigger.

 

[Daniel Stilling]

difference to s35 is small? You did not fork out good $$ on S35 or FULL Frame Superwides. They should have designed MFT Mount instead ...

You have no idea what I have or do not have. Jeez, what about a little respect?

 

[Ben Graham]

Like i said it is still not a relevant or standard FOV reference for S35 cinematography which is not going anywhere anytime soon regardless of what sensor sizes are created. You should probably get used to that

 

[Mendel Katz]

Other than a FOV change, what other ramifications are there for the change in sensor size in terms of the image characteristic?

 

[Ben Graham]

It depends on how much pixel peeping you want to do. I wouldn't lose ANY sleep over it. I shoot with my Ultras, Leica Summicron-C and my zf zeiss lenses at 4k all the time on my dragon. They all look different but all look great. The imperfections like CA and fringing in lenses like the zf are of course more amplified at 4k vs 6k but it is not like shooting 2k on a red one!

 

[Mendel Katz]

It depends on how much pixel peeping you want to do. I wouldn't lose ANY sleep over it. I shoot with my Ultras, Leica Summicron-C and my zf zeiss lenses at 4k all the time on my dragon. They all look different but all look great. The imperfections like CA and fringing in lenses like the zf are of course more amplified at 4k vs 6k but it is not like shooting 2k on a red one!

Thanks. What about distortion? Here my concern would not be the distortion being amplified by the crop itslef, rather having to constantly be using a wider lens.

Say that on s35 using a 12mm is not so common to use & has a more distorted look that would almost border on deliberate (were not talking very expensive cine lenses), however say on the raven you would use a 12mm for a standard wide & dont want that distortion, will this be an issue?