*** RPP''s & RPZ's FOCUS Re-Markings Professional Service ***

[Ketch Rossi]

EDIT:



NEW thread w/few pics & chart Posted here: http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=693107#post693107



:closed2ur0:

Hi guys,

firstly I like to point out that I absolutely LOVE the RED RPP's and the RED RPZ's especially at their price point,
they just slashes to threads anything that comes close to them of how sharp they are,
and even so having a Pre-Order of the new Cine Leicas, I will still have great use for the RPP's,
as their build quality is second to NONE... but...

last NAB Mark from HoffHolywood and I we were discussing together with one of his guys and Matt Duclos,
about some of the issues that have been coming up on sets as the lenses not having in off Focus Markings,
and why some were complaining about not renting their RPP's as much as they wanted to,
and loosing some of the business to Arri/Zeiss and or Cookes, even when the Budget was tight and they would have much preferred go with the RPP's,
especially since there was no need to shoot under T*1.8, but still the DP's didn't want t go with the RPP's and or RPZ's do to the Focus Markings,
not been up to their very high standards of Cinema Grade Perfection.

My take on this is that at this price point no one really should complain, and having this serviced and the additional Mapped out Markings added is a easy thing to do,
fast and not at all that expensive, and then you will have a Set of RPP's equally precise to the highest pint as the Arri/Zeiss MP's but still at a fraction their cost.

AGAIN, pay attention here, as this is not intended to Criticize Red for the design on their new Pro series of Optics,
but simply to address the issue of the Markings.

So the reason for this is to try and figure out how many would be wiling to do this to their RPP sets,
and have the Focus Markings added as to have as many and as accurate as those any Other set such as the Arri/Zeiss MP's.

*REMOVING THE HOOD FROM THE 17-50 WILL VOID THE WARRANTY!!

 

[Gunleik Groven]

From some of the responses I've had, I think you're pretty much spot on.

I don't own them, but I really like them BTW.

 

[Evin Grant]

Are we taking re-marking, adding marks or both?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Are we taking re-marking, adding marks or both?

Adding Markings Evin.

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

AC's here doesnt want to shoot without markings on feature films, at t2-t2,6
they say they need the markings to work.
so ketch, how much in dollares?
and what about the red warranty.

for the 17-50
a red certified marking and removing of the hood by duclos woupd be great

i dont own red lenses yet, so would be cool to know ketch how much you paid ( especially for the rpz)
thanks

 

[C.H.Haskell]

I am listening.

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

focus helix design

focus helix design

Unfortunately remarking these lenses won't solve the issue IMO.
The RPP scales are this way because of the design choice that was made. The focusing mount range is optimized towards close focus and this is done at the expense of mid to far focus mark spacing. Helix design being linear in nature limits the flexibility of the spacing. Cam design such as Cooke or, now Leica allows for non linear travel and there fore, optimal use of focus range and mark spacing. This is why Cookes have nicely spaced mid range marks and Leicas took it a little further with actually optimizing the cams to the optical design and making the spacing identical in far to mid range that makes the AC job much more straight forward.
The remarking might help a little but will not make a whole lot of difference IMO.

 

[C.H.Haskell]

Does the RPZ 17-50 suffer a lot of the same issues? Also does Duclos provide a hood removal?

 

[Dan Kanes]

Shims anyone?

 

[Jacek Zakowicz]

don't think so

don't think so

Shims anyone?

Shims are the least of the problem:wink5:

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Unfortunately remarking these lenses won't solve the issue IMO.
The RPP scales are this way because of the design choice that was made. The focusing mount range is optimized towards close focus and this is done at the expense of mid to far focus mark spacing. Helix design being linear in nature limits the flexibility of the spacing. Cam design such as Cooke or, now Leica allows for non linear travel and there fore, optimal use of focus range and mark spacing. This is why Cookes have nicely spaced mid range marks and Leicas took it a little further with actually optimizing the cams to the optical design and making the spacing identical in far to mid range that makes the AC job much more straight forward.
The remarking might help a little but will not make a whole lot of difference IMO.

I agree with you in most points Jacek, but I still believe that adding Focus Marking, via insuring an accurate
measuring system in such way will be ideal and put the lenses in a better position against the Big boys.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

AC's here doesnt want to shoot without markings on feature films, at t2-t2,6
they say they need the markings to work.
so ketch, how much in dollares?
and what about the red warranty.

for the 17-50
a red certified marking and removing of the hood by duclos woupd be great

i dont own red lenses yet, so would be cool to know ketch how much you paid ( especially for the rpz)
thanks

Still on the works but this is why I posted this, as many some have told me of this issue, and I like to see it resolve or at list have a solution that makes the issue less noticeable,
agin, for the price pint this lenses are just simply incredible, what we are trying to do here, is spending a little money to customize them,
in order to make them closer to the big boys which cost 5 times more.

I'm sure He could do the customization of the Hod off the 17-50 and remark the upper part of the naked front Element, but not sure I would this permanently,
as I really like the design of the Hood on the 17-50, but agree that in some occasions, especially in S3D mounting, will be better off removed,
Jared is our Fire Chief and He can sure do what ever He wishes, but we better be very careful what we do to our gear as not to void their warranty.

Does the RPZ 17-50 suffer a lot of the same issues? Also does Duclos provide a hood removal?

Remember Clay that, beside the answer given above, removing the Front top element, as that is what it is, not just a Hood,
as it is made in such a way that serves much more then the purpose of a simple Hood,
you would also have to place a new Focus Mark, as that it is placed on the Hood element right now.

 

[joshua csehak]

Please pardon my ignorance, but would somebody care to explain the issue here? Are the focus marks off? I have to admit, I'm not sure I've ever pulled focus by measuring; it's always been by doing a focus check and marking it with a dry erase, or on-the-fly.

 

[Sam Winzar]

I'm interested but would love to know more about price and turn around time (which I guess depend on how many people are interested).

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Please pardon my ignorance, but would somebody care to explain the issue here? Are the focus marks off? I have to admit, I'm not sure I've ever pulled focus by measuring; it's always been by doing a focus check and marking it with a dry erase, or on-the-fly.

Current Markings are SPOT ON, its just that more are needed in order to please some tuff crowds, but I agree that are needed, and will make the set better.

 

[C.H.Haskell]

@Ketch
I see, well I am sure Duclos could whip up some unique alternative. I actually dont have a big problem with I would consider a smaller profile as that is the reason I am buying this compact zoom to begin with. Without that hood, would the element of the lens telescope out, thus bumping into filter tray for example?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

@Ketch
I see, well I am sure Duclos could whip up some unique alternative. I actually dont have a big problem with I would consider a smaller profile as that is the reason I am buying this compact zoom to begin with. Without that hood, would the element of the lens telescope out, thus bumping into filter tray for example?

I understand Clay,

however from the design stand point, I'm sure Jared had his own reasons to remove the hood, however, it is not something I would recommend doing, the lens was originally design like that for a reason, if your intention is to remove it for a specific shoot and then remount it, then yes, have it done, but to leave the lens permanently with out the hood, no I would not do it, as Yes the Element will be zooming out of protection range when at 50mm, not a good thing.

 

[joshua csehak]

Current Markings are SPOT ON, its just that more are needed in order to please some tuff crowds, but I agree that are needed, and will make the set better.

Ah, thanks. Out of my league then. I'd solve the problem with some gaff tape and a sharpie, and spend the money instead on German board games

 

[Adrian Correia]

Actually on my set, the markings are sometimes off in terms of the stop and focus distance....like T2.8 on one side is T2.8 1/3 on the otter side - and 8 feet on one side of the lens is 8 feet 4 inches on the other side...can be problematic when dealing with shallow stop/ longer focal lengths / moving subjects.

 

[fREDeric ChAMbERlAnd]

There is also a technical issue with RPP's marking and programming of Preston HU3 lens mapping. The HU3 lens mapping needs some specific marks to be programmed and every RPP has one or two marks missing (you need 6 total).
I have sent my concerns to Preston and they replied they would look into it to add some marking points into a future software upgrade but no word yet about it.

Would love to be kept in the loop on this one (remarking).
AC'S need more marks at T2 . . .

Any experienced AC who looks at the 50mm will tell you the lack of marks between 5 and 10' makes it a black sheep in an instant.

My 2 cents.