Something to consider...

[Evin Grant]

For those out there that think still lenses are inferior optically to cinema specifc glass open your eyes...

"Panavision: The most commonly used source of anamorphic lenses , Panavision have several series of lenses which range from 20 mm to a 2,000 mm anamorphic telescope. The C-Series, which are the oldest lens series, are small and lightweight, which makes them very popular for steadicams. Some cinematographers prefer these to newer lenses because they are lower in contrast. The E-Series, which are Nikon glass, are sharper than the C-Series and are better color- matched. They are also faster, but the minimum focus distance on the shorter focal lengths is not as good. The E135mm and especially the E180mm are great close-up lenses with the best minimum focus of any long Panavision anamorphic lenses. The Super (High) Speed Lenses, also with glass by Nikon, are the fastest anamorphic lenses available with T-stops between 1.4 and 1.8; there is even one T1.1 50mm. But like all anamorphic lenses they need to be stopped down to get a good performance, as they are quite soft when they are wide open. The Primo and Close-Focus Primo Series, which are Panavision's latest anamorphic lens series. They are based on the spherical Primos and are the sharpest Panavision anamorphics available, as well as completely color-matched. But they are also very heavy (between 5 and 7 kilograms)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamorphic_widescreen
Yes I know it's Wikipedia but it's been widely known for years that Panavisions anamorphics are none other than modified & rehoused Nikon still lenses.

 

[Don Woods]

Very Good Evin I think we are going to see a very nice fit between red and nikon.

 

[Jaime Vallés]

Awesome. Makes me feel reallly good about using Nikon lenses. Now all I need is a good Follow Focus unit and a lot of practice.

 

[PaulClements]

Problem is you need to take something like that and get it too all prospective clients that don't know or couldn't care less, and just see "SLR lenses?... Hmmph, I want professional gear!".

It's not so much a question of whether the Nikon's or other SLR lenses will work as much as it is a question of how other professionals in the field perceive your setup I suppose. An AC that knows cine lenses might be a bit apprehensive about SLR's... of course they can learn, and why not. But at the end of the day there are a great many individuals who would rather just have the name product there because it's not an unknown.

I think the results that get posted up here over the next year of Red footage using Nikon glass will certainly open peoples eyes to the benefits of price. Especially when they see what a $100 lens can do compared to it's >$4000 counterpart.

 

[James T Mather]

Problem is you need to take something like that and get it too all prospective clients that don't know or couldn't care less, and just see "SLR lenses?... Hmmph, I want professional gear!".

I would think it's a non issue provided the lenses are colour matched and focus correctly at the sensor -
I find Clients generally won't know/care about cameras or lenses - we use them already and no-one's noticed - the Frazier Lens system which, upon first use, I suspected utilised SLR lenses (in addition to a ton of wickedly clever optical wizardry by Jim Frazier) but the actual lenses themselves that pop on the front of this thing seemed, to me, to be stills lenses.So I checked this out:

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Hcm

"Thus, all the objective lenses for the Panavision/Frazier lens are actually off-the-shelf 35mm SLR lenses (for those not in the know, the 35mm SLR format is larger than the 35mm Cine format) that Panavision strips out of their casings and remounts in custom casings that only fit the Panavision/Frazier lens. (Curiously, despite this remounting, Panavision continues to designate the objectives by their original focal length, not by the EFL obtained when mounted on the system)."


- but producers, on the other hand, will be uncomfortable taking a risk on unproven gear - make a demo or show them something - after that add a mattebox and some filters and noone will know nor care.

The main reason, I think, for going PL is that the stills lenses are not generally designed for critical focus pulling in a high pressure environment - colour matching and T-Stop matching are also possibly not balanced and finally, the wider lenses in Nikon (for example) are 2.8 - 3.5. This, I think is disastrous for high speed, high pressure shooting. Your widest lenses (which means that your lighting package will be doing its least) are slow. That's the deal-breaker from where I'm standing. A 50mm capable of 1.8 is fine but you're only as good as your slowest lens - and if that lens is your widest - then god help you on a night exterior when you're leaning hardest on fast lenses.

In short - if your film is a nighttime drama - like Collateral or After Hours - then I suggest you rent some superspeeds.

If its a daytime drama - you're fine.

It's not so much a question of whether the Nikon's or other SLR lenses will work as much as it is a question of how other professionals in the field perceive your setup I suppose. .

Just mention the Frazier lens.

I think the results that get posted up here over the next year of Red footage using Nikon glass will certainly open peoples eyes to the benefits of price. Especially when they see what a $100 lens can do compared to it's >$4000 counterpart.

I imagine there will be some, but not a crazy difference - it's all supply and demand - why are Arri standard mount lenses so much cheaper than PL? for that very reason - supply and demand. Pro equipment commands a much higher rate and Arri standard is seen as "older" gear.

Someone will win Sundance on a film shot on a digital system using Nikon lenses - the audience won't notice - and they'll be legitimised. It's the way things have always been.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

jtm,

I think you forgot one of the largest issues in concerns to Nikon stills.....breathing.

Although they may hold up in sharpness, contrast, ca, so on so forth, they breathe quite a bit.

I love my Nikkor prime set, but if I had the choice, largely due to the amount of breathing and measuring system of Nikkors, I'd drag a client over to a set of ultra primes or s4's with ease.

For the budget conscious, Nikkors are a killing in terms of a bargain. I've shot many beautiful images with my Nikkors and a 35 adapter. Yet there is a large difference and I don't think we should attempt to fool our clients into thinking they're getting apples for apples in comparison to cine glass.

 

[Evin Grant]

But let's be honest do you see it? If your looking for it it can be found but in most circumstances it's hidden in moves or action and dosen't even become visable unless the focus shift is dramatic, beyond six feet or so. I'm not saying still lenses don't breath (Although the 17-35 Nikkor is as good as any cinema prime) but is it really an issue that demands a $15K-$25K investment to solve? For me it's not. As far as focusing there are practical solutions being developed by many company's to address the issues still lenses have with focusing. The best of these may end up being Red's own focus assist.

So the question I pose to you is if the market creates a solution to focusing/distance and we all agree the sharpness/quality of the glass is up to snuff is the breathing on a handfull of shots enough of an issue for you to spend as much or poossibly more than your Red cost in order to remedy it.

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

 

[Sam Druckerman]

"BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnification difference to correct the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you."

Great thread.

This is what I've been thinking and hoping all along.

We have so much resolution to play with it really shouldn't be that big a deal to simply reframe the move in a NLE.

This will be one of the first things I test when my camera comes....

Let's keep our fingers crossed.

 

[James T Mather]

Yet there is a large difference and I don't think we should attempt to fool our clients into thinking they're getting apples for apples in comparison to cine glass.

Alexander, please don't put words in my mouth - where in my post did I say that? I said this :

I find Clients generally won't know/care about cameras or lenses

and this :

- but producers, on the other hand, will be uncomfortable taking a risk on unproven gear - make a demo or show them something - after that add a matte-box and some filters and no-one will know nor care.

I have never discussed a lens with a client. Clients care about the product - they don't know the difference between cine and stills lenses, they want a sharp picture and clean, professional work - the details are left up to us. If breathing happens to be your foil - great - others hate CA or veiling glare or barrel distortion or narcissus or...the list goes on.

I agree with Evin - it's what you choose to see - "Cine Glass" as you put it is just as capable of artifacting as any other lens - for example, anamorphics generally breathe horribly when rack focus pulled. Particularly the Primo Close Focus Anamorphics (possibly the most sophisticated anamorphics I've ever used). I'm currently shooting a job on a very old set of Zeiss superspeeds (yes, the ones with the triangular circular bokeh - they're the only prime lenses available in the country we're shooting in for a variety of reasons) and the director (who generally shoots anamorphic) loves them because they are so optically messy. he's not impressed by primos or S4s (and hates all digital cameras including the Genesis and the d20) . It's all relative.

99% of jobs I do are on PV Primos. Yet I have to agree with the director in this case - it is a refreshing change to use some interesting lenses with odd and interesting optical characteristics - I might not want it everyday, but , today it's an interesting and fun change from the norm. and we didn't have to sell the client apples or anything else because the client didn't care less - he's interested in the product being sold.

 

[Evin Grant]

Thanks JTM, sometimes it's hard to get people to think pragmatically like that. It's funny how much the Zeiss zelots who say still lenses are useless, sound like all the video guys who tell me Red can't make a 4k camera because Sony hasn't. oster_oops:

 

[Poi Boy]

Given the price and quality of my Nikkors I am giving up very little in performance compared to cine lenses.
Aloha
-A

 

[Ken Corben]

Thanks Evin!

Very interesting facts. Since we are all exploring new ground here in different genres, thanks to RED, the proof will be in the RED testing similar to all your lens work to date for specific applications - theatrical, HDTV, digital projections and the list goes on.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

So the question I pose to you is if the market creates a solution to focusing/distance and we all agree the sharpness/quality of the glass is up to snuff is the breathing on a handfull of shots enough of an issue for you to spend as much or poossibly more than your Red cost in order to remedy it.

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

Hey I'm all for shooting with Nikkors Evin. But, if the production allows for a set of S4's or Master/Ultra's, I'd easily accept the offer.

Newer cine glass breathe's less, has extensive barrel markings, has better overall ca/contrast/sharpness. So the cost may be 10x the cost of a Nikkor prime set, yet you can't deny their quality.

Sadly, customers do care about name brands. Owning a set of Zeiss or Cooke primes will guarantee you more work, if not rentals without a problem. So I consider it somewhat of an investment vs. a loss.

I'd really love to see a comparison of say an ultra prime vs. Nikkor in regards to sharpness, breathing, ca and the like.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

Oh, I will gladly withstand the pain of that 10 sec. action in post or NLE as many times as necessary...

 

[Evin Grant]

Newer cine glass breathe's less, has extensive barrel markings, has better overall ca/contrast/sharpness. So the cost may be 10x the cost of a Nikkor prime set, yet you can't deny their quality.

Sure I can, it depends on the glass, Cooke S4s are not that sharp, there not suposed to be. The softness is what makest them an alternative to Zeiss.
They resolve fine though, almost all reasonably good optics will resolve enough for 35mm film. That includes still lenses, which are rutinely used at resolutions beyond Reds 4K. As far as CA correction that depends on how old the lenses are, what is your definition of "modern"? The only 35mm cinema optics I know of that were designed for a digital sensor are the Zeiss Master Primes.

Sadly, customers do care about name brands. Owning a set of Zeiss or Cooke primes will guarantee you more work, if not rentals without a problem. So I consider it somewhat of an investment vs. a loss.

I don't think this will be so for much longer. Hopefully enough Red shooters can prove to the comunity that using high priced cinema lenses is as much of an anachronsim as using glorified video cameras to make movies.
BTW I do consider Reds own lenses a part of that evolution, if Zeiss made a 18-85mm 2.8 it would cost $30K

I'd really love to see a comparison of say an ultra prime vs. Nikkor in regards to sharpness, breathing, ca and the like.

Hopefully soon:bleh:

 

[Mark Mannschreck]

Sure I can, it depends on the glass, Cooke S4s are not that sharp, there not suposed to be. The softness is what makest them an alternative to Zeiss.
They resolve fine though, almost all reasonably good optics will resolve enough for 35mm film. That includes still lenses, which are rutinely used at resolutions beyond Reds 4K. As far as CA correction that depends on how old the lenses are, what is your definition of "modern"? The only 35mm cinema optics I know of that were designed for a digital sensor are the Zeiss Master Primes.



I don't think this will be so for much longer. Hopefully enough Red shooters can prove to the comunity that using high priced cinema lenses is as much of an anachronsim as using glorified video cameras to make movies.
BTW I do consider Reds own lenses a part of that evolution, if Zeiss made a 18-85mm 2.8 it would cost $30K



Hopefully soon:bleh:

The problem is there are just sooooOO many Nikkors out there! Although this great forum and sites like www.naturfotograf.com will no doubt help out many who plan to use quality Nikkors with their Red to produce stunning imagery, I think that knowledgeable DP's, Directors, and even Producers will continue to request a lens package that has a proven track record. Of course, I am using the 17-35, the 35-70, and the 85mm Nikkor right out of the gate with Red and I'm sure they will kick ASS.

But let's be honest do you see it? If your looking for it it can be found but in most circumstances it's hidden in moves or action and dosen't even become visable unless the focus shift is dramatic, beyond six feet or so. I'm not saying still lenses don't breath (Although the 17-35 Nikkor is as good as any cinema prime) but is it really an issue that demands a $15K-$25K investment to solve? For me it's not. As far as focusing there are practical solutions being developed by many company's to address the issues still lenses have with focusing. The best of these may end up being Red's own focus assist.

So the question I pose to you is if the market creates a solution to focusing/distance and we all agree the sharpness/quality of the glass is up to snuff is the breathing on a handfull of shots enough of an issue for you to spend as much or poossibly more than your Red cost in order to remedy it.

BTW it's a simple matter of a slight magnificarion diffence to corect the breathing in post if it really ruined a shot for you.

Correcting the breathing of multiple focus pulls in Post is not really as simple as adding a couple of scale keyframes to counteract the magnification factor during the pull. There is always the human factor of the pull and the graduated velocity between the two points that can make it fairly difficult to accomplish... BTW - Breathing isn't a problem if you just shoot "Drunk Cam" all the time.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

Evin, In the end, when dealing with a client I'll take the approach of........ Well I have a set of Nikkor primes we can shoot with if the S4's or ultra primes aren't within your budget.

Without a doubt, modern primes (Ultra, Master, S4 heck even SS Mk3's) out-do Nikkors. I'm not saying there will be a night and day difference by any means, rather a slight advantage here or there, but never the less, an upgrade in comparison with Nikkors.

 

[Finner]

Evan I would not disagree with you that nikon and other still lens companies build good lenses. When it comes to using them for cine use a nikon will not be as good or easy to use as a S4 or Ultra prime set. Cine lenses are a dead match on color, end barrel size, T stop and have a great long focus throw. A brand name cine lens is superior.

Now I do not doubt that people will be able to produce great images with the nikons. When it comes to breaking down cost to performance difference I believe the nikons will be the winner but when it comes to a set that will be the easiest to work with and the best results even if it is slight, it will be the cine lenses.

 

[Evin Grant]

When it comes to using them for cine use a nikon will not be as good or easy to use as a S4 or Ultra prime set. Cine lenses are a dead match on color, end barrel size, T stop and have a great long focus throw. A brand name cine lens is superior.

Cinema lenses are certainly purpose built and so do perform better ergonomically than thier still counterparts. But let me ask you this, have you ever shot with a Zeiss or Cooke lens on a 35mm sensor digital camera at 4K? I'm assuming no, neither have I. But I have shot many Nikkors at that resolution digitally and know exactly what to expect. At the moment it's the Nikkors that are the known performers not the cinema lenses. We can make guesses based on their film performance but there is really no way to know till the Red ships. So we don't know that Zeiss or Cooke primes are better, in fact I think it's actually those lenses that have to prove themselves now. As far as color matching is concerned this is really no issue in a RAW based workflow and I've been shooting Nikkors for years and compositing diffrent lenses together, there is very little if any color diffrence inside a particular lens line. As far as focus draw, I have a feeling that will be solved by the marketplace.

Now I do not doubt that people will be able to produce great images with the nikons. When it comes to breaking down cost to performance difference I believe the nikons will be the winner but when it comes to a set that will be the easiest to work with and the best results even if it is slight, it will be the cine lenses.

The cine lenses may be easier to work with, but not as easy as a producer who just saved thousands of dolllars in rentals for the same quality of work.

All that said I'd still like to see Red create an affordable prime set with all those features you mentioned and the digital specific performace necesary for the Mysterium sensor.

 

[Finner]

But let me ask you this, have you ever shot with a Zeiss or Cooke lens on a 35mm sensor digital camera at 4K? I'm assuming no, neither have I.

All that said I'd still like to see Red create an affordable prime set with all those features you mentioned and the digital specific performace necesary for the Mysterium sensor.

I have shot Ultra Primes testing with D20 (2K) and 435. The cine lenses looked great on the d20 and I would not hesitate to use them with that camera. I am very excited though to see independant DP tests with the red and different lenses.

I also would like to see a set of red primes.

The next few months should be very exciting.