The Day of Understatements... (RED primes)

[Matthew Duclos]

One thing I can’t explain, when I was comparing Cooke S4 with MPs on the projector MPs were sharper and has much less CA. Also geometry and breathing was almost perfect on MPs.

I would rely more on a projector.. There are so many different factors to include when you are using a camera to test a lens. The ambient light, the quality of your display, too much to list... A projector is in a controlled environment and when calibrated properly, always gives you a dead accurate representation of lens quality.
Matching that lens quality to a camera is a whole different story...

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

People talking about using post to make lenses looke like cooke's etc. is very naive thinking. It can't be done.

I've said it twice I'll say it 3 times. You *can* to some degree compensate for overall tonal differences between lenses. I never said you can completely clone all of the pecularities of a lens.

If the only feature you care about is color. That can probably be compensated for to the 99% th degree. I suspect that in the grand scheme of things the variations in CA from focal depth don't actually make a big difference in tonality since it's just CA and not actual filtering. Shoot a gray wall close focused and distant focused and it'll I almost guarantee be the same color. (Conservation of energy and all that.)

Personally I judge lenses by bokeh and flare. I like something that looks interesting. Sharpness is nearly last on the list of things I look for. In fact I tend to like the look of some crappy lenses.

Too many years in front of a computer have made my cynical to perfection.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Matching that lens quality to a camera is a whole different story...

And this is one reason I suspect that Jim is very happy with what they've been able to accomplish. Sounds like the lenses are a very good match for the camera.

Now, what I anticipate is great about having the ability to see the lenses on a projector is that it gives you a starting point. A fairly objective starting point for finding some strengths and weaknesses. Once you see them in that environment, you take them into the real world and see how those strengths and weaknesses stack up with real subjects, under various lighting conditions and then start to form an accurate picture of the personality of the lenses. What might have seemed like weaknesses on projector may in fact turn out to be a strength for a particular shooting circumstance. Or vice versa.

To me what RED is doing at the event is a good way to give people that starting point. And it will be fun to see other lenses thrown up on the projector as well. I know I don't have to reiterate this, but the goal of the REDUSER event is about the USERS. It is an objective gathering place to discuss all things RED related without bias. It gives people an opportunity to try out various tools of the trade, learn about workflow, socialize with peers, etc. As such, there will be a lot of lenses floating about at the event. And Red welcomes this. It will be fun to check them all out. I ask that everyone keeps that spirit in mind at the party.

 

[Eric Lange]

Jim, is there any chance in the not too distant future that RED will publish a set of data sheets on the new RPPs? (This would be terrifically helpful).

For example a bit like what is already published for the still lenses on the Zeiss website; data sheets showing various MTF plots, relative illumination and (quite importantly for some applications) RADIAL DISTORTION, image circle and other basic optical and mechanical parameters. I have to admit I rely far more on these data sheets for lens selection for technical applications rather than just how the lens looks (you can’t buy every lens you are thinking of using).

Such data sheets are not normally available for the Master or Ultra Primes and I have always been interested in how well breathing and distortion is ACTUALLY corrected for, I only have brochures that say how wonderful these aspects are but no hard data to say how well and by how much! (Its expensive and time consuming to have to carry out these measurements yourself just to find out that something is effectively no good for the application).

Cheers,

Eric

 

[Jannard]

Jim, is there any chance in the not too distant future that RED will publish a set of data sheets on the new RPPs? (This would be terrifically helpful).

For example a bit like what is already published for the still lenses on the Zeiss website; data sheets showing various MTF plots, relative illumination and (quite importantly for some applications) RADIAL DISTORTION, image circle and other basic optical and mechanical parameters. I have to admit I rely far more on these data sheets for lens selection for technical applications rather than just how the lens looks (you can’t buy every lens you are thinking of using).

Such data sheets are not normally available for the Master or Ultra Primes and I have always been interested in how well breathing and distortion is ACTUALLY corrected for, I only have brochures that say how wonderful these aspects are but no hard data to say how well and by how much! (Its expensive and time consuming to have to carry out these measurements yourself just to find out that something is effectively no good for the application).

Cheers,

Eric

Yes. Data sheets coming.

I agree that there are times when an "imperfect" lens is the best choice. There are times when anamorphics are just what the doctor ordered. And a LensBaby can be a useful tool (seldom). But I want my standard set to be neutral and match the resolution that I'm shooting. I don't want to waste the time shooting 5K with a lens that konks out at 4K. People want more resolution. "I want to shoot 5K so I get a real 4K image". It seems completely counter-intuitive to then put a lower resolution lens on that camera.

The RPPs are matched to our sensor in every way. We know what the microlens on every pixel needs and we give them (all 5K of them) what they ask for.

If you like a certain "look" of a lens, a lens projector can tell you, mostly, what causes that look. Maybe it is the sharp center resolution and softer edge resolution. OK. I get that. But what happens when you take that same lens and shoot 5K instead of 4K? Do the edges go wickedly soft (usually yes)... assuming that there is actual coverage that far out. And assuming that the light falloff doesn't turn into obvious vignetting. How do you tell? Put it on a lens projector and you'll get a pretty good idea.

Jim

 

[Jonathan Stevenson]

Jim,

I think the reason everyone is so skeptical with the "jaw-dropping" qualities of these lenses is because we're all raised to believe that if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

That said, I can't wait to get a set of these puppies and I get giddy every time I read a post about how great they are

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Jim,
For the Reduser party with the RPPs and lens projector...could you also bring the Red 18-50, 50-150, 300 & 18-85? It'd be really nice to understand the differences. This will be my first time seeing a lens projector up close.

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

Gavin, I have to say, I agree with you on color.

I am a little bothered by the "naive" comment.

I grabbed the S4-Standard side by side from an other thread and nailed the color of the standard to match the S4's in about 10 minutes. The contrast took me about the same, but there are a lot of differences to tweak into that curve, and I was having much harder of a time judging it. You would really need a few shots to make sure you have good contrast results, and it might never be perfect. But while I was first afraid to say it at first, thinking someone else might jump out and cry blasphemy, I know that I can get the color and contrast in there, juuuuuust right, not perfect, but SO close it would be VERY hard to find the differences... by trained eyes. They are not the same thing, but you would not see them easily at ALL, and so many wouldn't ever find them... and that is from a .jpg!!!

Would it be the same?
No, it won't.

As others explained clearly on their helpful posts, which I read carefully trying to learn as much as possible, there will be other things. Stuff that goes beyond color reproduction and contrast. Issues/Character/Distortion/Anomalies/What-Have-Yous... there must be a few things that I am not even aware of...

But despite how much I like S4s, that doesn't mean I am going to try to emulate them or consider it a compromise.

I look for what the scene in the project in question needs, as it should be. And since I will grade everything individually, whether I start from an S4 or an MP or a RPP, so long as I can get there, then I am good to go.

I am truly sorry if I took the "naive" thing a bit too much to heart. I have been up all night so maybe I shouldn't take this as a personal thing. But it smells of an attack fueled by someone trying to quiet eagerness for a set that could take lots of rentals away from their large investment... don't know, nor do I care if this is the case. Either way, if in fact I was called naive, please watch your words next time. And try to realize that a lot might be lost in the translation on a forum.

K, I am done... Hope nobody was bothered by my rant.

 

[Martin Weiss]

I think the reason everyone is so skeptical with the "jaw-dropping" qualities of these lenses is because we're all raised to believe that if it's too good to be true, it probably is.

In that respect history can really teach us something. R1 had been called a Scam long before it ended up being used on big budget films, i.e. not for monetary reasons.

So, the future is indeed exciting.

 

[Michael Lindsay]

Jim, is there any chance in the not too distant future that RED will publish a set of data sheets on the new RPPs? (This would be terrifically helpful).
Such data sheets are not normally available for the Master or Ultra Primes and

Interestingly Zeiss have a good 2 part document on their web site about MTF. They talk about the value of publishing this kind of data and they use a 14mm UP in the picture... Ironically getting any hard facts on theses lenses (UP or MP)is very difficult.

regards

Michael Lindsay

 

[Michael Lindsay]

The RPPs are matched to our sensor in every way. We know what the microlens on every pixel needs and we give them (all 5K of them) what they ask for.

Jim

Does anyone remember if the Red one had microlenses?

thanks

Michael L

 

[Shawn Nelson]

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.

Remember, they have dropped in price to some unknown below $20k

I hear you about the 18-50mm, and feel a bit burned. I remember back asking a Red employee "Now I know Red is revolutionary, but is this lens?" (inquiring about the 18-50mm since I knew NOTHING about PL glass), he then had Rodney Charters vouch for what a great lens it was. Fast forward to now...it seems that being an early adopter on Red glass was a mistake as the value of those two lenses has fallen faster than any glass I've ever watched (and the 300 became "un-pro"). Not only the $ value, but now the 18-50 is oft derided by Red themselves. Hopefully being an early adopter on Red primes wont follow suit.

Will there be a set of "oops, these are the REAL PRO primes" that cost 20% more and are released later? It'd be like my university, after I graduated, offering a "PRO" Computer Science degree, thereby retroactivey making my degree the "unPRO" one...

 

[Andrew M.]

Unfortunately lenses do not have firmware that you can upgrade.

Looking back, first RED firmware compared to current v17 is as different as RED 18-50 will be compared to PRO.

 

[Bing Bailey]

Any chance red will ever create their own Anamorphic lenses ?

 

[Jannard]

Remember, they have dropped in price to some unknown below $20k

I hear you about the 18-50mm, and feel a bit burned. I remember back asking a Red employee "Now I know Red is revolutionary, but is this lens?" (inquiring about the 18-50mm since I knew NOTHING about PL glass), he then had Rodney Charters vouch for what a great lens it was. Fast forward to now...it seems that being an early adopter on Red glass was a mistake as the value of those two lenses has fallen faster than any glass I've ever watched (and the 300 became "un-pro"). Not only the $ value, but now the 18-50 is oft derided by Red themselves. Hopefully being an early adopter on Red primes wont follow suit.

Will there be a set of "oops, these are the REAL PRO primes" that cost 20% more and are released later? It'd be like my university, after I graduated, offering a "PRO" Computer Science degree, thereby retroactivey making my degree the "unPRO" one...

A few notes here... several features have been shot using the 18-50mm zoom. It was the ONLY available solution for RED ONE owners upon the release of the camera that could be owned by more than 3 people. We have acknowledged that it was not mechanically as good as other professional lenses, but that it could make professional quality images. And it has. Two years ago, what were your other options? We don't deride the 18-50 at all. We provided a solution at the time when there were no solutions, particularly for indy filmmakers on a budget. We are realistic about its strengths and weaknesses relative to its price point. Obviously, as time has moved forward, other options are now available that weren't then.

2nd. The original 300mm lens is exactly the same optically and mechanically as the new Pro 300mm. The new Pro 300mm has the new "Pro" ID to match the 18-85mm zoom and RPPs. And we finally get to make a little money on it. The original 300mm is certainly not "un-pro".

Your final comment has no merit whatsoever in the context of this discussion. We never called the original lenses Pro and then "un-Pro'd" them. Nor will that happen with the new RPPs.

Jim

 

[Shawn Nelson]

A few notes here... several features have been shot using the 18-50mm zoom. It was the ONLY available solution for RED ONE owners upon the release of the camera that could be owned by more than 3 people. We have acknowledged that it was not mechanically as good as other professional lenses, but that it could make professional quality images. And it has. Two years ago, what were your other options? We don't deride the 18-50 at all. We provided a solution at the time when there were no solutions, particularly for indy filmmakers on a budget. We are realistic about its strengths and weaknesses relative to its price point. Obviously, as time has moved forward, other options are now available that weren't then.

2nd. The original 300mm lens is exactly the same optically and mechanically as the new Pro 300mm. The new Pro 300mm has the new "Pro" ID to match the 18-85mm zoom and RPPs. And we finally get to make a little money on it. The original 300mm is certainly not "un-pro".

Your final comment has no merit whatsoever in the context of this discussion. We never called the original lenses Pro and then "un-Pro'd" them. Nor will that happen with the new RPPs.

Jim

Jim, thanks for noticing. I had no idea that the 300mm is the same mechanically as well! So I take back my final comment completely.

You are correct in that the 18-50mm looks great! I've shot some fun stuff with it. I guess it's just hard watching it's value fall like a rock. I've never seen glass (to a mount that it still in ever-increasing use no less) fall in value by so much so fast. I was hoping to flip mine for 75% of value (which is usually pretty damned easy with glass) to somehow leverage into your prime set. No dice. But that's not your problem. Anyways, thanks for the clarifications. On my earlier comment, can you have the 18-50, 300 & 18-85 there at NAB as well to compare against the RPPs?

 

[Thommes Ulfeng]

I just want to say thank you to the people who spend time and post here. I have learnt so much from reding this and other posts. Viva redvolution!

Thommes Ulfeng :bigear:

 

[Paul Leeming]

Nice try but not accurate. There are many ways to produce a lens without having a "major" do it for you. Actually, many advantages to NOT having one do it for you. Also, big surprise... most "big" lens companies have many outside vendors. And the RPPs lenses are a fresh sheet of paper, designed in the US, exclusive to RED program.

Jim

Thanks for the info Jim

I'm actually genuinely surprised about the majors here having sub-contractors! Canon has prided itself on its lens factory and even has factory walkthrough and manufacturing process videos available.

I am aware that the RPPs are a fresh sheet of paper design (as with the 18-85). I just figured (wrongly as it turns out!) that one of the known lens companies would be contracted to cut/grind/polish glass to specifications X and Y and house it in housing spec Z, with the specs supplied by Red.

Ted showed me the prototype 85mm at InterBEE last year and I must say that mechanically it felt as good as any UP or S4 lens. Didn't get a chance to test it optically because it was mounted to the Scarlet rapid prototype mockup body at the time.

Cheers!

Paul

 

[Mike Prevette]

I was hoping the RPP would be Cosina for a long time, as I'm a HUGE fan of what they've done with rangefinder lenses (Voigtlander and Zeiss ZM) as well as the Zeiss ZF lenses, but considering the new Compact Zeiss primes (which they also make) I realize they probably won't be behind the RPP's.

Sigma is slowly correcting their old reputation (SIGMA used to stand for: SIGnifigant MAlfunction) and are putting out some very nice digital lenses these days. It don't know how much OEM work they are now, or who their suppliers are.

Not sure any of this matters as long as the RPP live up to what I'm hearing about them.

 

[Peter Majtan]

Ok, but just to be clear, is that RRP's being sharper at T1.8 than MP's at T1.3? or T1.8 for both?

That is that RPP's are sharper at T1.8 then MP's at ANY T, be it T1.3 or T1.8
I have never seen lens this sharp across the entire area. Virtually no visible sharpness or brightness fall-off...

Peter