The Day of Understatements... (RED primes)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Thanks Mike, but what is this "look" of S4s that people talke about?

I'm VERY FAR from a lens tech. But I've seen some line ups of lenses (Canon vs S4 vs UP)

And it was immediately and readily apparent which was which.

Color, Contrast, Bokeh and sharpness are the big 4 I would pick out. The s4s definitely have a warmer tone.

Also flares will be unique to each every lens. If you want a specific flare that you like you'll want to pick out the individual lens.

Now with everything going through a DI now-adays it could be argued that any lens could give the same contrast and tone as any other. But why muck about when you can just get the same look?

 

[Fredrik Callinggard]

Mitch, with all due respect, Cooke S4 was crafted predominantly for film media and it is where it looks so good.

I'd say that is a personal preference.

I find them to produce very nice images with for example RED. Especially that creamy look that Mitch are referring to. That's still there with RED as well.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

I love the look of S4's on Red.

World is changing, 4K look is coming. And many people that were in love with the film a like feel and look have change of heart once they are exposed to the 4K look.
Also 4K is like cmeleon, not only because of post but because it has multiple personality.

Andrew

Several of those personalities are various film looks.

I don't know what the f* it is in S4's that I love, but it is there. However I care more about composition, set dressing, camera work and performance. So I'll gladly take more of a WB'ed look with T0.2 extra light if all other things remained equal. And give the rental savings to my finishing house. Only then add the add the ridiculously lower price to the equation.

I think the ball is now on the post side. Unless the RPP's flop atrociously in comparison to the expectations set forth... which I doublt anyone here believes. Maybe some with newly acquired lenses on other forums will.

It it all about post in my mind now. I hope VERY soon I'll be able to grade -properly- at home, before I run it by an actual grader.

The savings in that work flow would translate to the difference in renting S4s for small productions. Graders can simply tweak the whole thing, change only a so many shots, and fix -hopefully- only one or two places. But for that they need to get their shit together and create a perfect CDL for Color, which could only happen once we can work off the RC files at 2k, at decent speeds, at 10-bit, on a true 10-bit monitor...

When the F are they going to get that right? Jim, can you get on that too?

 

[Andrew M.]

According to all those images you had a serious problem with adjustment of back focus on RED1.

Read more about that "issue" at the posts #34 and #35 from the LINK>>>

This is what we were thinking at first.
We checked and re-checked again.
Also the marks on the MP focus showing 6’ distance was as measured.
At some apertures we had less vignetting though, that is normal.

But this explain why recently when I had to use UPs lenses all was off by 3-4” as measured at the 6’ distance and compared to the focus marking.
I even ask the rental house to show me and re check the UP.
I have all collimated for MPs
Good find! Sanjin that I didn’t expect.
Thanks!


Andrew

 

[Jannard]

Warmer?

Interesting test... we shot a white board with an RPP, a Cooke S4 and then a UP. We opened in RED Alert! and did a WB from the center of each frame. The resulting WB numbers were virtually identical. Go figure.

Jim

 

[Andrew M.]

I'd say that is a personal preference.

I find them to produce very nice images with for example RED. Especially that creamy look that Mitch are referring to. That's still there with RED as well.

I hate MPs looks straight from the RAW frame in comparison to Cooke S4.
Looks bit like 12 bit material in 16 bit DPX, milky and low contrast.
Also MPs are cold in comparison to Cooke S4
But MP captured material I can push further in terms of colors and resolution in post.
The end effect is better for me.

Evin made some tests once Cooke vs Zeiss
http://205.234.135.241/forum/showthread.php?t=5509

Andrew

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

I hate MPs looks straight from the RAW frame in comparison to Cooke S4.
Looks bit like 12 bit material in 16 bit DPX, milky and low contrast.
Also MPs are cold in comparison to Cooke S4
But MP captured material I can push further in terms of colors and resolution in post.
The end effect is better for me.

Andrew

We are shooting a feature on Masters right now - we did extensive comparison tests with 2K screenings - MPs vs UPs vs S4s vs Superspeeds.

Masters never seemed "colder" than S4s. In fact - we noticed more detail and "warmth" on the projected footage with the MPs. This just shows you how subjective talking about a lenses "look" is ... and one set ... is not the same as another set ... of the same lenses. What are you shooting ..? how are you lighting it ..? exposing it ..? post processing it ...?

 

[Julio Quintana]

Warmer?

Interesting test... we shot a white board with an RPP, a Cooke S4 and then a UP. We opened in RED Alert! and did a WB from the center of each frame. The resulting WB numbers were virtually identical. Go figure.

Jim

I love this company. Now if only I could get off REDUSER and finish my script...

 

[Andrew M.]

We are shooting a feature on Masters right now - we did extensive comparison tests with 2K screenings - MPs vs UPs vs S4s vs Superspeeds.

Masters never seemed "colder" than S4s. In fact - we noticed more detail and "warmth" on the projected footage with the MPs. This just shows you how subjective talking about a lenses "look" is ... and one set ... is not the same as another set ... of the same lenses. What are you shooting ..? how are you lighting it ..? exposing it ..? post processing it ...?

Mark, I can make MPs warm just by small change of the temperature setting on RED.
Most of comparison tests I made in daylight, urban settings.
Did you do this comparison on the RED?

Evin made some tests once Cooke vs Zeiss
http://205.234.135.241/forum/showthread.php?t=5509

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Thanks for the link Andrew

 

[Jens Jakob Thorsen]

True! But I'd like to think and I do feel that there's a small difference there even with DI. Maybe it doesn't matter anymore but I'm a great believer in making as much in camera as possible. For example, there's a difference between breaking the beams of light with a chocolate filter then trying to CC it afterwards. That chocolate filter "dirties" the look in a way that's not IMO replicable afterwards, simply because the glass of the filter does something to the light and the color does something to the colors of the image as it blends before it hits the sensor.

As a young DP I used to put the black promist in afterwards when we telecined. Simply because we felt uncomfortable to do so in camera. I did this to "soften" the image a little but eventually realized that I was doing so from the negative and therefor reversed the effect and instead of softening the highlights we were softening the blacks. Now this may be a bad example, but I think you get my point in some ways.

Now characteristics has nothing to do with new lenses, because you need to make your lenses as good as possible. So having that fight is in some ways meaningless - Im trying to say that concerning that Im not on anyones side - this will be choices of preference if you're in that luxurious seat of being able to choose.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT what you choose (and dare) to do in camera does make a difference. That's why you choose your DP, because of the choices he makes to create the image you strive for. Otherwise you could hire anyone.

I have to agree with my friend here(except even in the early 90ties I knew that a filter in the telecine would reverse the effect(I know you also knew and, that it was just an example ;-))).
Having shot several features in both chemical and DI(+RED) I can say that there is actually very little you can do to change the core feeling and caracteristics that the lens produces for a theatrical release.
Yes we can make a sunny day into an almost believable night in post, but this does NOT change the make up of the lens/filter/flare/smoke combination that interprets the light falling on the sensor, or the film, and creates the caracteristics and feeeeeeling of the image, and the emotion that the image evokes.
And after all thats why I am in this job...trying to evoke emotions.
And thats also how I choose my lenses.

(RED owner,Elite owner, Lomo ana owner, Optimo owner,Film lover,ZeissSSlover,S4 lover,MP lover,Cooke zoom lover,future REDprime owner)

 

[Harry Clark]

I'm feeling lazy, so I just copied and pasted from an earlier post I made:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=10772&highlight=Cooke&page=2
regarding my feelings about S4 lenses...

I have shot a lot of film, HD with the Pro-35, and now quite a bit with my Red, with both my Superspeeds and my S4s. I've also done a couple of jobs with the Master Primes. I've also had extensive experience with my 18-100, 20-100, Angeniuex HR, and of course the Optimo line, but I will confine my comments to primes because that's the gist of your thread.
I can tell you that overall, the differences are VERY slight for broadcast, even in HD. The Superspeeds do get a little mushy wide open, which I think was less of a problem for 35mm (for telecine) and Pro-35 work, both of which introduce an overall smoothness (not necessarily softness) that I think Red does not naturally have (Red images are very nice and pleasing but wickedly sharp) The Superspeeds are like two lenses in one; softer, more dated-looking below T.2.8, and more modern and indistinguishable from Ultraprimes when you stop down past 2.8. I think both Superspeeds and Ultraprimes render a nice, sharp, but somewhat clinical look. The Master Primes are razor-sharp and have snappy contrast no matter where the aperture is. Again, it's more of a clinical, perfect sharpness.
Which brings me to the S4s. Perhaps Matt Duclos has hit upon something here with his observation of the blooming on the lens projector. I always describe S4s as having the same apparent sharpness as the Zeiss glass, but with a certain "roundness", or "dimensionality" of light that the Zeiss lenses lack. The focus falloff is also more naturalistic than the Zeiss lenses, even at identical apertures. I have always also felt this way about the Panavision spherical Primos. I just think it's the slight differences in the way the glass is polished, the coatings, the mechanical design and anti-flare coating on the lens mechanics that all add up to these small but discernible differences in the look of the lenses. I also think that both S4s and Primos are a little more forgiving of focus pullers' errors because the focus falloff is not so clinical; that is, a slightly soft shot at T2.8 on an S4 might look acceptable, but a slightly soft shot at T2.8 on a Master Prime might not.
And YES to Mitch's comment that there is no current lens that flatters peoples' faces like the S4s.
Again, VERY small differences. But I suppose I'm a "Cooke man".

I'll stand by those statements still.
Now, if the RPPs are pleasing and well-built, I'd buy a set to offer another option in my side business of renting gear. Certainly it gives us an economic choice, and it will cover the 5K 32mm circle on the Epic.
Mitch is right. There is a LOT more to choosing a lens than looking at a projector's image.
Looking forward to the SALT tests!
Cheers,
Harry

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Interesting.

All of the lens line ups I've seen have been slightly warmer. But pixels are pixels and if they say it's the same then it's probably the same.

Either way. If there is a color you're after. That's what a 3DLUT is for. That's what's so great about digital. If there is a film stock or lens in existence it has an empirical color response. And that can be mapped. With sufficient dynamic and gamut on the capture end any end result can be simulated digitally perfectly.

EDIT: Wheee! 2k posts.

 

[jbeale]

making different lenses look the same

making different lenses look the same

... If there is a film stock or lens in existence it has an empirical color response. And that can be mapped. With sufficient dynamic and gamut on the capture end any end result can be simulated digitally perfectly.

I think that's right to an extent- probably very accurate if you consider only 2D scenes, for example.

But just to take a contrary (and theoretical) view, think about how the optical system reacts to points in front of and behind the plane of exact focus. I guess people usually think about bokeh in a geometric way, but in general you will see chromatic shifts, because R,G,B light rays do not fall out of focus at the same rate. This will cause out-of-focus point light sources to appear as a blob with somewhat different colors in the center and at the edge, for example. The exact way in which that happens depends on the specific lens design, and I don't know how you could precisely match that effect in post without a full 3D model of the entire scene.

How much any of that matters in any given scene is, of course an issue of personal perception and taste.

 

[Luke Stewart]

I love this company. Now if only I could get off REDUSER and finish my script...

LOL!!! Amen to that.

 

[jbeale]

random (Canon EF) lens testing

random (Canon EF) lens testing

My last post made me curious to try something. I put three different Canon lenses on my trusty EOS 20D. The subject is a small bright light about 15 feet away, (mini-maglight with the reflector removed, so you see just the peanut bulb). I focused each lens (wide open) at infinity, on the bulb, and closer in. Note how the color fringes change, in addition to the texture... I guess I'm looking at the point spread function. Thought it was interesting, in any event.

 

[Mitch Gross]

As Harry indicates, my point is that looking at a lens on a lens projector does not begin to come close to a complete analysis of the optical quality of that piece of glass. This is not a pissing match of one lens against another, just a note that one can't try two lenses on a projector and declare one "better" than the other and be done with it. There is so much more to it.

I'm not saying that these new RED primes are not all they're said to be. I have no idea -- they could be stunning. But if all one does is stick a lens on a projector and see edge to edge brightness & sharpness and a few of the other factors that can be judged on a projector like chromatic abberation, then that's as limited a way of thinking as saying "RED is better because it has more resolution" and stopping the thought process there. That wouldn't be giving credit to all the other aspects of what makes the camera what it is or is not just like it similarly short-shifts athe lens.

If I started listing all the other tests of a lens it might sound like I was somehow picking apart the RED lenses, and I'm not. I haven't even seen them yet. That's what I like about the upcoming SALT event. I note that Matt Duclos has remained mum on this topic and I don't blame him one bit.

I'm glad for you guys who got to play with thr RED primes and see them on a projector. The REDuser party will be fun and it will be fun to stick various lenses on a projector. Just don't think that this is the end-all be-all comparison test becuase it's not.

 

[Eric Lange]

radial distortion?

radial distortion?

Would be nice if someone at the S.A.L.Ts could measure the radial distortion on these (RPPs) lenses especially as they have a comparitively large image circle?

Interested in these lenses for 3d and S3d metric/VFX applications. Degree of radial distortion is an important factor for more technical work, but less so for generic shooting.

Cheers,
Eric

 

[Brook Willard]

Great posts, Mitch. You've said it far more eloquently than I could hope to.

I have no doubt that these lenses are tack sharp - I can't wait to play with them. At the $20,000 price point, the set of primes [today, pre-NAB] that is likely to take the hardest hit are the Zeiss T2.1s. The RPs will be faster, cheaper, internally focused and more appropriately sized for today's cameras. While the mechanics [another enormous part of what makes a lens "great"] are still a complete mystery, I'm sure they will be finer/more precise than the T2.1s if only for their size and relative mechanical youth.

Like I've said, I can't wait to get my hands on these primes. I have very high hopes for them, particularly after playing with the newer RP mechanics. RED knows what we want out of lenses... and it's going to be fun to see what they were able to draw from that and put in a $20,000 package.

But I'll echo Mitch's statement regarding the lens projector. It is a great test - akin to shooting a resolution chart with a RED. I'm sure they'll be scary sharp. Don't forget, that 18-50mm looked pretty great on a projector as well! But as soon as your subject stepped into that "20' to infinity" void on the barrel... or you shook the lens with the internal barrel extended... etc... it looked different.

The good news is that RED knows this. They've come so far from the F-stop-only days of lens making that I have high hopes for these primes. I'll take you at your word that they're sharp. The only projector I want to use with the primes will throw a 40' tall scene in front of me. That's the test I want to be a part of.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Mark, I can make MPs warm just by small change of the temperature setting on RED.
Most of comparison tests I made in daylight, urban settings.
Did you do this comparison on the RED?

Evin made some tests once Cooke vs Zeiss
http://205.234.135.241/forum/showthread.php?t=5509

Yes. The feature is all Red and the tests were shot on Red. And sure - you can "warm" anything with a color temp setting. That's like me saying I can make a shot warmer in post. I am speaking to shooting all lenses with the same camera settings.