Red Lenses

[reality]

How is the 18-50 a problem with matte boxes? The telescoping element does not extend beyond the front shroud.

 

[Charles Angus]

Also, the Zeiss 10-100 T* zoom for regular 16 has a moving front element. Just thought I'd mention a cine lens that does that. (admittedly not a very useful one anymore).

 

[Poi Boy]

I've had no problem with the 18/50 and matte box because as reality said the telescoping happens within the shroud. Are $25K lenses better ? yes, by a miniscule amount.
Aloha
-A

 

[Steve Gibby]

Mike (aqua),

Glad to see I'm not the only one around here who makes long posts!

Thank you for the kind words. I think your responses are valid and well thought out.

We may never have final yes/no confirmation on the question of the pedigree and origin of the RED 18-50. I don't spend much time worrying over that. I just use the heck out of the lens and enjoy it. In my experience it has been the film traditionalists (read: purists) that tend to look down on lenses that they perceive as being re-housed 35mm still lenses. Technology convergence doesn't always set well with them. I'm not one of those...

On the Birger mount, as you well know, I'm with you on the very short list to receive one of the first Birger mounts for testing, and I was one of the first ones (besides Birger) to put a non-functional Birger mount prototype on a RED camera and post pics of it here - clear back in October. I'll definitely use the Birger mount when it makes sense for my projects.

We won't really know for sure if the Birger Canon mount will fully work with a Canon mount Sigma lens until we have an operational Birger Canon mount and fully test it out - so that is unproved at present.

The i data of the Cooke lenses, which RED has licensed, is a very attractive feature for traditional cine-style shooters. Those guys generally aren't interested in 35mm still lenses for cine use, much less a different flavor of metadata to deal with. The Cooke lenses with i data, like the S4i, are well thought of in cine circles. thus my mention of RED's i data in summarizing the attractive cine style features for those used to, and looking for a cine lens.

I’m a proponent of some auto-iris capability, as I summarized on this active thread in the main forum. I use auto-iris for some of my DSLR photography, and some auto-iris for some of my TV/video camera work, so I wouldn’t hesitate to use auto-iris in some of my RED work, if it was available.
Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9312

 

[Matt Uhry]

Hi lens guru's I'm glad to see so much enthusiasm for Red's
little lens, I'm happy that they decided to make it and are able to sell it at such
a great price. In the interest of Red's future lens development growing I'm not going
to just blow sunshine at it and I'll call it like I see it....

What I like

-It's $6500 Dirt Cheap for anything new and in PL
-It's Small and light - great for hand held and steadicam.
-Good Optics , excellent resolution. very close focus
-Nice cosmetic rehousing, gears on focus, zoom and iris
-72mm screw in filters are cheap and easy !
-Cooke i- lens data system.

What I don't like

-Front element moves in and out, sucks dust into lens and camera.
-Bad quality control - A associate of mine has gone through multiple lenses to get a good one. Red is very good about replacing the defective gear...
-It's a T 3 - modern cine zoom lenses in that range are mostly faster than that
-50mm is not that long on the long end. You will end up buying a 50-150. the 18-85 should be nice.
-Not well marked for pulling focus by scale, this does not matter if you eye focus.
-Poor mechanics cause image shift at long end, inaccurate focus scale and t-stop on tested lenses.
-It's $6500 - that could almost get you a cooke 20-100($3000) and a cooke 25-250mk 2 ($4000) which are both sweet ....

I hope this does not come off as cranky...When all is said and done Gibby's right about not loosing sleep over this. Get
the best lens you can afford, something that you like and fit's your shooting style and move on and make some great shots.


Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Finner]

I would have to agree to comming to the exact same conclusions as Matt on this issue.

Red zoom is light, sharp and cheap for a new PL lens.

I own a cooke zoom and no I am not however selling it to buy a red 18-50.

I am also a bit of a cine-lens-snob and have worked consistantly with many of the best lenses in the world.

If you have worked with mainly the dvx, hvx or even f900/950 or verri cams the red zoom will be a definate step up.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Technology convergence and the Birger mount.

Technology convergence and the Birger mount.

Technology convergence doesn't always set well with them. I'm not one of those...
...
We won't really know for sure if the Birger Canon mount will fully work with a Canon mount Sigma lens until we have an operational Birger Canon mount and fully test it out - so that is unproved at present.
...

:umm: We don't really know much of anything until Erik gets the damn thing out:biggrin:, at this point it is all somewhat-informed, hopeful speculation. But based on that speculation, I am excited about the technology convergence since I think it really opens a lot of doors.

For instance, something I didn't mention earlier, is that in the still photo world there are inexpensive plug-in software tools that can almost perfectly correct distortions and chromatic aberrations in lenses - with pretty much just a click of a button. So lenses like the EF-S 10-22 and many other Canon and Nikon lenses are just presets. These tools could probably be used right now in a batch mode, but as more people start using the lenses on RED it is more likely the software companies will enable them for easy motion picture/video use.

It can be done for virtually any lens, but the easy functionality is only for the more popular lenses - so this is another area where we can take advantage of the huge volume numbers in the still photo world.

We may never have final yes/no confirmation on the question of the pedigree and origin of the RED 18-50. I don't spend much time worrying over that. I just use the heck out of the lens and enjoy it.

That's exactly the right approach.

I’m a proponent of some auto-iris capability, as I summarized on this active thread in the main forum. I use auto-iris for some of my DSLR photography, and some auto-iris for some of my TV/video camera work, so I wouldn’t hesitate to use auto-iris in some of my RED work, if it was available.
Link: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=9312

You've been a consistent proponent of keeping the mind open and using whatever tool makes sense. As they say: "It's all good!"

I just want RED to see that the Birger option, while competition in some instances, also makes RED a viable camera for many, many people that wouldn't be able to make sense out of it otherwise.

 

[Steve Gibby]

Matt and Finner,

I agree with your “What I Like” list – all points of which I’ve made about the 18-50 for months now. As for your “What I don’t like” list, I see some of those points very differently (se below). In analyzing the counter-points I make below, keep in mind that there are a wide array of genres and subgenres of production, thus various field usage techniques, that the 18-50 can be used in. Yes, its positioned as a “cine” lens, but being light and mobile, it can and is being used in a broad range of hybrid cine-EFP and EFP scenarios. In fact, I would assert that those genres and techniques are the ones that maximize the 18-50’s strengths and minimize its weaknesses. To me, a good description of the 18-50 would be: “a mid-priced, good optics, general utility lens for mid to small crew, non-union, hybrid cine-style/EFP style usage”.

Even though the 18-50 is cosmetically a cine lens, shooters from an electronic media background (TV/video/DSLR) using it, will be used to the electronic aids to focus and exposure that RED ONE has which are very familiar to their industries: focus assist, image magnification, zebras, histograms, etc. These shooters are used to trusting in-camera electronics, thus most of them will be/are sight focusers, and their exposure tools are in the camera already. These shooters also represent far and away the overall majority of motion media genres in this industry, with large crew, strict cine style procedure crews being in the minority. IMO the 18-50’s strong spot demographically is in the first group. For the reasons you listed in your “Things I don’t like” list, the large crew strict cine style crews simply won’t be using the 18-50 very often. I think you guys comments are representative of the second group mentioned above.

Some observations on your list:

Front element moves in and out, sucks dust into lens and camera.

After extensive use for several months in some of the most grueling environments on earth, tropical beaches, deserts, mountains, etc., GibCor has yet to experience the front element movement sucking dust into the lens and camera. In fact, I’ve yet to see anyone post a documented case of this being a problem. If GibCor hasn’t experienced it in the demanding environmental production we do, its hard to imagine others experiencing it. If that is a worry, the outer lens hood itself is threaded, so a clear protective filter can be screwed on there and then the telescoping center element is sealed off from the environment. If some one has experienced a problem with dust entering there, and can document it, I’d invite to share it with this forum. To hybrid cine/EFP shooters the telescoping most likely won’t be an issue. To the second type listed above – yes or maybe.

Bad quality control - A associate of mine has gone through multiple lenses to get a good one. Red is very good about replacing the defective gear...

GibCor and our associate companies have purchased multiple 18-50’s, and haven’t experienced a problem like that. Perhaps you associate has had bad luck, or another possibility is that he is just very hyper-critical of his equipment purchases, expected a perfect cine lens for $6.5k, and/or is very traditionalist cine guy who has a “ if it ain’t Zeiss or Cooke it ain’t really a cine lens” attitude. Again, Hybrid cine/EFP/sight focusers probably wouldn’t have been so picky.

It's a T 3 - modern cine zoom lenses in that range are mostly faster than that

True – and that’s a big issue for narrative cinema and commercial shooters who repeatedly seek wide open apertures and hyper-shallow DOF. Beyond that are the multiplicity of genres and sub-genres that rarely seek those parameters – docs, scores of EFP genres, etc. They are the key market for the 18-50.

50mm is not that long on the long end. You will end up buying a 50-150. the 18-85 should be nice.

The 18-85 will probably be an excellent lens, but will cost about $3k more than the 18-50 – and issue with some budget-challenged indies. If budget isn’t a big issue, and someone shoots a lot of genres where zooms make the most sense, docs, sports, etc., the a 2-zoom quiver of 18-50 and 50-150 makes excellent sense. That’s precisely what my personal approach will be, also adding in my Canon FD 150-600 zoom to make a 3-zoom quiver that covers 18mm to 600mm in combined focal lengths. I then have various primes to use when I want/need them.

Not well marked for pulling focus by scale, this does not matter if you eye focus.

IMO sight focusers are perhaps the largest market group for the 18-50, and as you’ve observed, it’s not an issue for them. As my posts on this thread itemized, my work with the 18-50 has all been sight focus – and critical focus has been consistently accurate. My exposure work with RED has been mostly via quick use of zebras and 2x image magnification – with consistently accurate exposure. There are a ton of potential hybrid cine/EFP/sight/electronics shooters out there who can and will use the 18-50 the same way. There’s more than one way to paint with a paintbrush.

Poor mechanics cause image shift at long end, inaccurate focus scale and t-stop on tested lenses.

Again, not issues with the largest market for the 18-50, the hybrid cine/EFP/sight/electronics shooters.

It's $6500 - that could almost get you a cooke 20-100($3000) and a cooke 25-250mk 2 ($4000) which are both sweet ....

Yes, a potential option if you do mostly stationary, usually big crew, strictly cine style genres with RED ONE. But, if you do the other production industry genres that represent the nine tenths of the iceberg that is beneath the water (mid/small crew mobile cine, mobile EFP, stabilization unit, etc.) those big heavy zooms just usually don’t fit the scenario well. Lightweight smaller zooms do.

I am also a bit of a cine-lens-snob and have worked consistantly with many of the best lenses in the world.

I also have worked consistently with many of the world’s best lenses (cine, 35mm still, TV/video), but I take a more liberal attitude toward new workflows and potential new uses.

If you have worked with mainly the dvx, hvx or even f900/950 or verri cams the red zoom will be a definate step up.

The DVX up to the F950 all lumped into the same category? Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but that appears to be a cine elitist looking down his nose at all cameras and lenses that are of the TV/video pedigree – kind of like: “When you move up to the big leagues (read: cine production), you’ll start knowing what quality lenses are all about”. As a longtime user of about every type of lens on the planet, and a worker in cine style and EFP style production, I simply don’t agree with that. Producing art and good images with a camera and lens isn’t dependent on lens type, lens features, and lens cost, or lens usage style. Since October on my REDs I’ve been shooting cine style with cine and 35mm still lenses, and EFP style with cine lenses, 35mm still lenses, and top-quality B4 2/3” HD EFP/ENG zooms. The glass quality and build of those B4 zooms (Fujinon 22x7.3 at $40k USD, and Fujinon 13x4.5 at $34k USD) is exceptional. The footage results in 2k RC RAW has also been commensurately excellent. The RED 18-50 is not a step up from those lenses – it’s merely a sideways step over to a different arrow in my lens quiver.


-------------------------

Do I think the 18-50 will be used widely in traditionalist cine-style circles? No. Which IMO is a product of their specialist needs, unions, preferred field workflows, and attitudes. Do I think the 18-50 will be used widely among “non-traditionalist hybrid cine style/EFP/sight focus/electronic aids using shooters”? Without question – in fact it already has been for months and is increasing being used by these crossover shooters. They are the core market for the RED 18-50. We’re all in a convergent motion media workplace. Equipment and usage possibilities are expanding. For comfort zone and other factors many traditional cine-style shooters will choose to stay traditional. That said, there are vast numbers of DSLR and TV/video shooters, who will now use digital cinema cameras and cine lenses in non-traditional ways, in mid to small crews (or by themselves) in non-union/task segmented ways. Again, they are the core market for the RED 18-50.

-------------------------

You guys are good friends and associates, we’ve worked together on paying jobs, and I also brought you in for LART because I respect your knowledge and experience. That said, professionals do disagree regularly – as is the case on the points above. We all have to develop strong opinions to excel in this industry, and we all obviously have done that. I can accept that 100%. Don’t take anything personal in my comments – let’s simply agree to disagree.

Cheers :biggrin:

(Jarred: do I get the monthly award for the longest single post on RED User?)

 

[JD Holloway]

Guys, thanks for the frank discussion.
It helps alot.
Gibby, your work environment resembles mine so I greatly appreciate your feedback. It just gets tough in the commercial/ long format environment when peoples eyebrows get raised over "suspect" equipment and you're trying to make a sale. In these areas I think I'll lean heavily on my primes.

 

[Finner]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finner
I am also a bit of a cine-lens-snob and have worked consistantly with many of the best lenses in the world.

I also have worked consistently with many of the world’s best lenses (cine, 35mm still, TV/video), but I take a more liberal attitude toward new workflows and potential new uses.

I was only pointing this out to show that I am spoiled with having used many lenses that are far more expensive then I could buy hence making me biased when it comes to lenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Finner
If you have worked with mainly the dvx, hvx or even f900/950 or verri cams the red zoom will be a definate step up.

The DVX up to the F950 all lumped into the same category? Maybe you didn’t mean it that way, but that appears to be a cine elitist looking down his nose at all cameras and lenses that are of the TV/video pedigree – kind of like: “When you move up to the big leagues (read: cine production), you’ll start knowing what quality lenses are all about”. As a longtime user of about every type of lens on the planet, and a worker in cine style and EFP style production, I simply don’t agree with that. Producing art and good images with a camera and lens isn’t dependent on lens type, lens features, and lens cost, or lens usage style. Since October on my REDs I’ve been shooting cine style with cine and 35mm still lenses, and EFP style with cine lenses, 35mm still lenses, and top-quality B4 2/3” HD EFP/ENG zooms. The glass quality and build of those B4 zooms (Fujinon 22x7.3 at $40k USD, and Fujinon 13x4.5 at $34k USD) is exceptional. The footage results in 2k RC RAW has also been commensurately excellent. The RED 18-50 is not a step up from those lenses – it’s merely a sideways step over to a different arrow in my lens quiver.

I was not lumping these cameras together one little bit and what I said you took way out of context Steve. I felt the look of the red with a 18-50 lens gave a better look then each of those cameras with their lenses nothing more and did not feel I had to go through a lengthy post on how each of those cameras were different and resons why some were better then others. Just for the reason of saving people time in reading I put those cameras one after another in the post. The whole rant about cine elitist looking down with their noses appears to stem from issues you have had with past cine people and I would appreciate not being lumped into a catagory like that.

You have brought up a good point and I do retract that the red zoom is better then the f900 or vericam zooms. I have not personally done tests so those zooms could indeed be much better then the red 18-50. From what I have seen I would lean toward also feeling that the fujinon and other high end 2/3" lenses have much higher quality control and mechanics then the the red 18-50 so those lenses would indeed be better in that category.

I hope that helps in clearing things up.

Like you say professionals and friends disagree on industry items from time to time. I take no offence in that what so ever, in fact I often learn more from someone challenges my thoughts and opinions on something as compared to someone that just agree's all the time.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Matt and Finner,


Even though the 18-50 is cosmetically a cine lens, shooters from an electronic media background (TV/video/DSLR) using it, will be used to the electronic aids to focus and exposure that RED ONE has which are very familiar to their industries: focus assist, image magnification, zebras, histograms, etc. These shooters are used to trusting in-camera electronics, thus most of them will be/are sight focusers, and their exposure tools are in the camera already. These shooters also represent far and away the overall majority of motion media genres in this industry, with large crew, strict cine style procedure crews being in the minority. IMO the 18-50’s strong spot demographically is in the first group. For the reasons you listed in your “Things I don’t like” list, the large crew strict cine style crews simply won’t be using the 18-50 very often. I think you guys comments are representative of the second group mentioned above.

Cheers :biggrin:

Gibby: I think your point stretches to include the RED in general. Although many focus on the RED for Cine use - and as Finner points out even a few hundred REDs probably saturate that market - IMHO the sweet spot for RED is the EFP/documentary shooter (stepping up a little in price from HVX or happily, down in price from Varicam/F900 land) , where we want 4K for our difficult/often irreplaceable footage (Coral reefs and polar bears may be extinct in 20 years). And we don't have the workflow time crunches of a weekly TV show, nor the same pressures and gear needs of big-crew movie production.

BTW you may want to check some of the updates on the Birger mount:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6149

(Jarred: do I get the monthly award for the longest single post on RED User?)

This just means I have to go over to the bubble blowers thread and try to explain underwater/dome port optics again. :biggrin:


BTW Finner, Matt, Gibby and the rest, even though I don't shoot theatrical movies or commercials (yet!) I love your posts, read them all, and learn a lot. Keep it up!

 

[Matt Uhry]

Gibby: I think your point stretches to include the RED in general. Although many focus on the RED for Cine use - and as Finner points out even a few hundred REDs probably saturate that market - IMHO the sweet spot for RED is the EFP/documentary shooter

All my post's are based on my point of view, I shoot features, commercials and music videos, usually decent budgets, but not always. I think we want the Red1 to be the perfect tool for the kinds of shoots that we individually do. I have total respect for Gibby's and Finner's work and opinions. It's all love guys.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Gibby,

Thanks for your reply regarding my inquiry on the cine-style focusing ability of the 18-50. I heartily agree with your other views and attitudes. Being freed from preconceptions and trying to find easy and logical ways to work around shortcomings is far better than rejecting something just on the basis of it not being the same as what has been used "forever" by "every professional". I too rack my own focus when operating a camera and I have to say that after years of practice, there are very, very, very few situations when I would need a focus puller. Which is not to say they are not talented professionals who have a place in large productions, but outside of that realm, is amazing how much more you can accomplish with less if you're just willing to try and have the patience to let this new skill become second nature.
An interesting thing happened to me the first time I was fortunate enough to work with a VERY talented and respected European cinematographer and his crew. I was overseeing the shoot as a rep from the production company, and they were having a difficult time with a steadycam shot that required the operator to run up a hill and do some athletic moves. I offered to run it for them, and since I represented the "money people", they let me. I was able to get the shot done relatively easily and quick, since all my focus was on the camera movement as the physical side of it wasn't much of a challenge to me given my fitness level as it did for the steadicam operator. They lauded me as a "natural" afterwards, and fun (and misplaced) as the praise was, I wondered in fact how many "difficult" or "impossible" shots might not be due in part to a professional that neglects an overlooked side of the preparation for his job. According to the operator, most steadycam fliers don't do much training at all, except to fly the camera as often as possible, but this can very easily put you out of your comfort zone whenever something unexpected or unaccostumed appears.
I was also amazed at how unwilling and nervous about confirming focus by eye they were when the terrain prevented the use of measuring tapes, and they in fact wanted to build some sort of bridge to reach over the chasm we were filming and be able to run the tapes! I finally took responsibility for focusing by eye, helped them do so, confirmed it with a 24" monitor I hauled up the place, and what do you know, the focus was dead on. All of us that come from still photography know how to, and accept it as the only option many times, focus by eye, and though I've seen many films with soft focus spots here and there (achieved with the trusty measuring tape) I've yet to see a photograph by a professional photographer on a magazine out of focus. Including the large format ones, done with manual lenses. Anyway, I used these points to illustrate the fact that, as Gibby says, the film "purists" are used to very specific, and not always neccessarily conducive to the best or fastest results, ways. So I can see how they would not like a lens like the RED 18-50, but I think that, like Gibby, I'm goint to give it a serious go once it's time for our REDs to arrive.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Gibby,

Thanks for your reply regarding my inquiry on the cine-style focusing ability of the 18-50. I heartily agree with your other views and attitudes. Being freed from preconceptions and trying to find easy and logical ways to work around shortcomings is far better than rejecting something just on the basis of it not being the same as what has been used "forever" by "every professional". I too rack my own focus when operating a camera and I have to say that after years of practice, there are very, very, very few situations when I would need a focus puller. Which is not to say they are not talented professionals who have a place in large productions, but outside of that realm, is amazing how much more you can accomplish with less if you're just willing to try and have the patience to let this new skill become second nature.
An interesting thing happened to me the first time I was fortunate enough to work with a VERY talented and respected European cinematographer and his crew. I was overseeing the shoot as a rep from the production company, and they were having a difficult time with a steadycam shot that required the operator to run up a hill and do some athletic moves. I offered to run it for them, and since I represented the "money people", they let me. I was able to get the shot done relatively easily and quick, since all my focus was on the camera movement as the physical side of it wasn't much of a challenge to me given my fitness level as it did for the steadicam operator. They lauded me as a "natural" afterwards, and fun (and misplaced) as the praise was, I wondered in fact how many "difficult" or "impossible" shots might not be due in part to a professional that neglects an overlooked side of the preparation for his job. According to the operator, most steadycam fliers don't do much training at all, except to fly the camera as often as possible, but this can very easily put you out of your comfort zone whenever something unexpected or unaccostumed appears.
I was also amazed at how unwilling and nervous about confirming focus by eye they were when the terrain prevented the use of measuring tapes, and they in fact wanted to build some sort of bridge to reach over the chasm we were filming and be able to run the tapes! I finally took responsibility for focusing by eye, helped them do so, confirmed it with a 24" monitor I hauled up the place, and what do you know, the focus was dead on. All of us that come from still photography know how to, and accept it as the only option many times, focus by eye, and though I've seen many films with soft focus spots here and there (achieved with the trusty measuring tape) I've yet to see a photograph by a professional photographer on a magazine out of focus. Including the large format ones, done with manual lenses. Anyway, I used these points to illustrate the fact that, as Gibby says, the film "purists" are used to very specific, and not always neccessarily conducive to the best or fastest results, ways. So I can see how they would not like a lens like the RED 18-50, but I think that, like Gibby, I'm goint to give it a serious go once it's time for our REDs to arrive.

Accurate marks on a lens don't make it difficult to eye focus. The opposite is not true.

I used to shoot reality cop shows where we would worry about using the camera light because it would probably be the first thing the Perp. would shoot at. I find it cute that you might think I have an aversion to pulling my own focus in a situation where it's the BEST way to get the desired shot. I find it naive that you think it's a GOOD way to work in every situation.

This is not an argument against any lens or working style, just reminding you that I have arrived at my opinions from doing lots of different kinds of work and not because I own stock shares of Zeiss!

We're kind of splitting hairs here because even though the Red 18-50 is not marked as well as some of us would like, it's not really that bad.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry

 

[Rudi Herbert]

Matt,

I don't know exactly how you felt that I was DIRECTLY about you when I was referring to film "purists"? I think you're one of the very talented DP's on this forum, and I think after seeing the clips on your website, I would feel fortunate to have you shoot any of my projects. Furthermore, I don't consider you a conservative or narrow minded person, as evidenced by your respect for the Russian lenses for example. Anyway, you showed restrain in your reply and I thank you for that, but again, it was not in any way or form addressed at you.
For what is worth, I don't think focusing by eye works well all the time, I am just surprised at how many industry professionals of many years feel so gloomy about it and are not much good at it. I never said you're one of them.

 

[Matt Uhry]

Matt,

I don't know exactly how you felt that I was DIRECTLY about you when I was referring to film "purists"? I think you're one of the very talented DP's on this forum, and I think after seeing the clips on your website, I would feel fortunate to have you shoot any of my projects. Furthermore, I don't consider you a conservative or narrow minded person, as evidenced by your respect for the Russian lenses for example. Anyway, you showed restrain in your reply and I thank you for that, but again, it was not in any way or form addressed at you.
For what is worth, I don't think focusing by eye works well all the time, I am just surprised at how many industry professionals of many years feel so gloomy about it and are not much good at it. I never said you're one of them.

No worries Rudy. I over reacted a little.

People sometimes seem to think that there is this mythical group of luddite DP's out there who seem to resist all that is new, digital and heavily marketed. When you look closer it's really a group of people with a lot of experience who have high standards and want to do the best work possible. Of course there are a few kranky geezers... Have you read cinematography.com lately? Yikes.

Matt Uhry
www.mattuhry.com

 

[Finner]

Of course there are a few kranky geezers...

All you dumb bastards can go screw your dogs as far as I'm concerned!

 

[chuck colburn]

All you dumb bastards can go screw your dogs as far as I'm concerned!

Jake, my (our) dog might take heed to that thought.
Elsewise I agree. lol

 

[MikeHedge]

can the 50-150 take screw on ND filters? what is the mm? 72mm?

 

[James T Mather]

Gibby,

Thanks for your reply regarding my inquiry on the cine-style focusing ability of the 18-50. I heartily agree with your other views and attitudes. Being freed from preconceptions and trying to find easy and logical ways to work around shortcomings is far better than rejecting something just on the basis of it not being the same as what has been used "forever" by "every professional". I too rack my own focus when operating a camera and I have to say that after years of practice, there are very, very, very few situations when I would need a focus puller. Which is not to say they are not talented professionals who have a place in large productions, but outside of that realm, is amazing how much more you can accomplish with less if you're just willing to try and have the patience to let this new skill become second nature.
An interesting thing happened to me the first time I was fortunate enough to work with a VERY talented and respected European cinematographer and his crew. I was overseeing the shoot as a rep from the production company, and they were having a difficult time with a steadycam shot that required the operator to run up a hill and do some athletic moves. I offered to run it for them, and since I represented the "money people", they let me. I was able to get the shot done relatively easily and quick, since all my focus was on the camera movement as the physical side of it wasn't much of a challenge to me given my fitness level as it did for the steadicam operator. They lauded me as a "natural" afterwards, and fun (and misplaced) as the praise was, I wondered in fact how many "difficult" or "impossible" shots might not be due in part to a professional that neglects an overlooked side of the preparation for his job. According to the operator, most steadycam fliers don't do much training at all, except to fly the camera as often as possible, but this can very easily put you out of your comfort zone whenever something unexpected or unaccostumed appears.
I was also amazed at how unwilling and nervous about confirming focus by eye they were when the terrain prevented the use of measuring tapes, and they in fact wanted to build some sort of bridge to reach over the chasm we were filming and be able to run the tapes! I finally took responsibility for focusing by eye, helped them do so, confirmed it with a 24" monitor I hauled up the place, and what do you know, the focus was dead on. All of us that come from still photography know how to, and accept it as the only option many times, focus by eye, and though I've seen many films with soft focus spots here and there (achieved with the trusty measuring tape) I've yet to see a photograph by a professional photographer on a magazine out of focus. Including the large format ones, done with manual lenses. Anyway, I used these points to illustrate the fact that, as Gibby says, the film "purists" are used to very specific, and not always necessarily conducive to the best or fastest results, ways. So I can see how they would not like a lens like the RED 18-50, but I think that, like Gibby, I'm goint to give it a serious go once it's time for our REDs to arrive.

I don't know what standards of crew you were working with but it sounded to me that it must have been amateur night - an out-of-shape Steadicam guy who finds composing the frame difficult because the physical exertion is proving too much? - then, in front of the crew, hands over his job responsibilities (and rig) willingly, indeed capriciously, to a rep from the production company who then shows him how to do it properly (sounds like a career ending story for that steadicam Op to me). A focus puller who cannot estimate distance by eye? (since chasms were involved it was clearly a distance greater than 10 feet where the barrel and DOF is most forgiving - or were you steadicamming on a 300mm Anamorphic (!)).

No focus puller I've ever worked with has a problem focusing by eye or indeed "winging it" - If they've tested the lenses properly they'll know if the scale is correct. Nine times out of ten focus pullers are happy to have a go and will instinctively know when they're "off".

Sounds to me like you were working with some students and/or idiots.

Also, without wishing to appear sceptical, no one I know has ever pulled on a Steadicam rig and pulled off something useful right out of the gate. It's not a case of being a "natural" - In the same way picking up up a guitar requires some practical understanding of how the instrument functions before you can knock out something resembling a tune - irrespective of any "natural" ability - unless you happen to be Ludwig Van Beethoven - In which case I stand corrected..

The above story just doesn't ring true or compatible with my experiences shooting for eighteen years across four continents with crews of all kinds. The myth that professional crews are entrenched in a "can't do it any other way" methodology is, in my opinion, nonsense - generally they are willing to adapt to whatever the situation requires.